There have been court rulings specifying when a motion "to exclude" is at issue. e.g.,

• In Easterby v. Clark (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 772, the Second District Court of Appeal discussed the issue of when exclusion is appropriate under the reasoning of Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557; Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907 and Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140. A party’s expert may not offer testimony at trial that exceeds the scope of his deposition testimony if the opposing party has no notice or expectation that the expert will offer the new testimony, or if notice of the new testimony comes at a time when deposing the expert is unreasonably difficult. Id. at 781.
• Exclusion of evidence at trial for discovery violations is a drastic sanction. It requires evidence of willful abuse of the discovery process and substantial prejudice. See Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.
• The evidence is admissible to impeach the testimony of a witness who testifies that the condition was not dangerous. Love v. Wolf (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 822, 831.

The motion to exclude is applicable to many kinds of evidence. For example, motions to exclude:

• witnesses; Evidence Code, §§ 350, 352, 702
• police report and opinions of investigating officer; Vehicle Code, § 20013; Evidence Code, § 805
• expert opinions not offered at deposition; Kennemur v. Jones (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907; Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557, 565.
• evidence of expert’s testing of tile; Pullin v. Super. Ct. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1165
• irrelevant evidence; Evidence Code, §§ 350, 352
• prior alcohol/drug use; Evidence Code, § 787
• testimony regarding amount of reasonable medical charges; Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.300
• evidence of economic damages
• worker’s compensation evidence
• anecdotal evidence
• undesignated retained experts
• evidence not previously disclosed in discovery
• golden rule arguments
• videotape of deposition
• reference to settlements
• documents not produced