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
Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine
1. Motion to preclude defendants from raising prejudicial subjects during voir dire
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
2. Motion to preclude evidence regarding selection or retention of counsel
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
3. Motion to preclude evidence of plaintiff Patricia Yasui's smoking history
The motion is denied without prejudice.
Pla...
..e first purpose because the tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds her.
Plaintiffs also argue that the smoking history is inadmissible for purposes of evaluation of life expectancy because no medical expert has been disclosed on this subject and introduction of the evidence for this purpose will cause the jury to speculate. Plaintiffs argue that defendant's only retained medical expert is Dr. Yo...
The following tentative rulings are based on the papers and current pleadings presented for the Court's review by Plaintiff and Defendant in the above entitled matter.
The Court reserves the right to change its rulings after oral argument, reserve or modify any ruling after any indicated 402 hearings and/or the time of trial, and/or to require additional briefing from the parties as the trial pro...
..l are ordered to advise their witnesses regarding the relevant court rulings. A witness's failure to follow the Court's orders will be followed by an immediate inquiry into whether counsel adequately advised the witness of the limitations regarding his or her testimony. The Court will sanction counsel for failure to follow Court orders.
In addition to the tentative rulings given below, the Court...
Motions in Limine – Tentative Rulings
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
Motion to Exclude Misleading Evidence
Relying of Evidence Code section 352, plaintiff seeks to exclude "mention and any reference at trial that no one else was injured on defendants' property prior to Ms. Gomez injury or that Ms. Gomez or the other tenants in her apartment failed to complain about prior problems with the stair...
..e testing were sufficiently similar to the conditions in plaintiff's apartment to be relevant.
Defendants Motions in Limine
1. Motion to Exclude Prior Felony Conviction of Steven Henderson for DUI
The motion is granted.
Defendant seeks to exclude a DUI from the 1990s. In response plaintiff contends that the witness had 5 felony convictions including a 1991 conviction for transportation and...
Roberts v. Downtown Plaza, LLC – Case No. 34-2009-00035722 – Motions in Limine – Tentative Rulings
The following is a copy of the tentative ruling that will be distributed at the first day of trial on February 14, 2011. Because this hearing involves a pretrial motion, this preliminary ruling does not excuse the parties from their obligations to appear and will not become final simply because a he...
..violate a ruling before the court has made an explicit order changing any of the rulings below.
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
1. Motion to exclude reference to tax information
The motion is granted. It is unopposed.
2. Motion to exclude reference to potentially prejudicial issues during voir dire
The motion is granted. It is unopposed.
3. Motion to exclude reference to settlement discussions...
NOTICE:
The following are the Court's tentative rulings with respect to the motions filed in connection with the case below.
Department 16
Superior Court of California
720 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor
Kevin R. Culhane, Judge
Sharon Brown, Clerk
Macklin v. Americrete – Case No. 34-2008-00022710 – Motions in Limine – Tentative Rulings.
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
1. Motion to exclude witn...
..eeks to preclude the experts testifying beyond the scope of the expert witness disclosure.
Defendant does not oppose the motion on the first two grounds. The motion is granted for that reason.
Defendant opposes the motion on the third ground because plaintiff's questions of the expert witnesses at deposition exceeded the scope of the designation. Defendant argues it would not be unfairly prejudi...
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
1. Motion to exclude new opinion testimony of experts
The motion is granted. It is not opposed.
2. Motion to exclude evidence of lack of helmet
The motion is provisionally granted.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence that he was not wearing a bicycle helmet at the time of the accident.
Plaintiff contends the evidence is not relevant because he had no d...
..fendant also contends that his affirmative defense of contributory negligence is sufficient to encompass the lack of helmet.
Defendant is not persuasive.
A bicyclist has the duty to exercise ordinary care. The fact that he is not wearing a helmet is not relevant to that duty in the first instance. The lack of a helmet is not a factor in the collision itself. If the lack of a helmet is at all rel...
22
23
24
25
28
KaMAaLa D.
Attorney Gener.
Gavin G. MCCAB.
Supervising Deputy
“LLIAM JENKINS
“alifornia
FILED/EHDOA. 5]
"L 18 2016
IN
rey General
By:
_—_E
ity Attorney Genera. : f. — |
. ar No. 143616
Ca
Depu
State b.
455 Go.
San Franc
Telephone:
Fax: (415) 70. AY
238526
. ! capacities
SUPERIOR
“TANFORD VINA .
*MPANY,
Vv.
STATE OF
THROUGH .
RESOURCES
STATE WATER
ROARD; STATE V.
YNTROL BOARD .
‘FORNIA, BY AN.
“TATE WATER
TROL BOARD;
1 NELSON ROWAN
omey General
ate Avenue, ...
ANNE MARIE MURPHY (SBN 202540) h
[email protected]
N DONALD J. MAGILLIGAN (SBN 257714)
'
[email protected]
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
~
...
<CH + CowpreY + JENKIN
18
19
20
nN
23
24
25
26
4
Beac 9Cowprey-Jé. NS. Cee
2 ER PLAZA DRIVE SUITE ILED/ENDO}, Y
SAv NTO, CALIFORNIA 95835 es
" )NE: (916) 333-5747
FAC (805) 388-3414 MAR 29 2019 |
L
mas E. Beach - State bo. 096321 By:_N Meging
>. Cowdrey - State b. 156115 Clerk i
Ja, atterson - State Bar \ °829 =
mal ~hcowdrey.com
Attorn - Defendant,
ESKAT. *OPERTIES INCOR, TED,
dba ESKA CARE CENTER FA, KS
%
~ TRIOR COURT OF. TATE OF CALIFOK
OR THE COUNTY & CRAMENTO
DEL...
Kirill B. Tarasenko
State Bar No. 283986
Kellen B. Sinclair
State Bar No. 296489
TARASENKO LAW FIRM, INC.
84S University Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone:
\OOONO\MAWN-—'
...
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (name and Address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
NO.: Sean Lucas ‘
95 Rlvendell Ln.
Paradise, CA 95969
Tel: 5330-2896379
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): IN Proprla Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTI'E
...
BARBARA R. ADAMS, SBN 99231
GEORGES A, HADDAD, SBN 241785
ADAMS | NYE| BECHT LLP
222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, California 94108-4521 FILED
Telephone: (415) 982-8955 Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: (415) 982-2042 County of San Francisco
SEP 06 2011
Attorneys for Defendant Clerk of the Court
AMCORD, INC. BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
GREGORY ESPITALLIBR, No. CG...
IMATE MA
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Mar-26-2003 10:56 am
Case Number: CGC-01-320834
Filing Date: Mar-26-2003 10:55
Juke Box: 001 Image: 00648628
ORDER
RAUL MALDONADO VS STEPHEN MOSKOWITZ
001C00648628
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oOo YW DAD HW BF WHY
RMR RM RNY YN KR KR NN Bee Be eB ee Be ee
ond A A BF OBO NH =F SOC wM NAR DA HA FB Bw HY S| DS
PHILLIPS, GREENBERG...
MOM
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jan-12-2006 11:40 am
Case Number: CGC-04-433290
Filing Date: Jan-12-2006 11:40
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01362393
ORDER
DANA BARBOUR et al VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al
001001362393
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.20
21
22
23
24
25
2 ) Case No.: 434990
J
2h mel L Ke ) ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE: MOTION
Plaintiff, )
; To exerve Pkodvet iD. ...
«\m
Jeremy Sugerman, SBN 146315 N
Ori Edelstein, SBN 268145 1%
GORDON-CREED, KELLEY, if",
HOLL & SUGERMAN, LLP fife. '
““i
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 2650 is: 401/0 ...
ANU
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jan-10-2017 9:52 am
Case Number: CGC-14-537814
Filing Date: Jan-10-2017 9:52
Filed by: JOSE RIOS-MERIDA
Image: 05698526
ORDER
DONALD W KINN et al VS. CAHILL & KAVANAUGH, INC., DBA MALCOLM
PLUMBING et al
001005698526
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oO ON DN BR WH
PR PNY YNN WH ~ a
ee u2agaP SERFS EC SWRA ZEESEHRerS
Robert A. Morgenstern, ...
WATE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-18-2016 10:15 am
Case Number: CGC-14-541708
Filing Date: Feb-18-2016 10:14
Filed by: ROSIE NOGUERA
Image: 05277878
ORDER
BRYAN LOCKWOOD VS. TAVISTOCK RESTAURANTS, LLC A DELAWARE
LIMITED ET AL
001005277878
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oe QW A HU FW DY eB
RP BBR SS&RAR BEBRES
26
27
28
THOMAS J: LOSAVIO, SBN 51023
JAMES F. R...
916) 503-2777
03-2778
Defendants.PROC. AL FACTS
2 In their expert wi disclosure of March 912, Plaintiff disclo. nong others, a pain
3 |} ma rent doctor, a plastic on and an anesthesh * Defendant disclose *xperts, but
4 |l reserve. “right to supplemen, expert list. Moving , slaims that the Plast. con
5 || disclosed, L Sert Stroup, is a trea. »ysician of the plain. owever, Dr. Stroup + ver
4 || treated the plain d thus at the time o1 *st supplemental dis. > of experts, March . $2,
jef...
THE COSTA La ™RM
NANIEL P. COSTA ‘110919
OREEN R. ALTMA. N 190008
> Sunrise Blvd., Ste.
FILED _ ‘'DORSED
3y eu ‘iver, California 956
Ter 2: (916) 400-2734
4) Telec (916) 400-2744
5} Attorneys efendant
AMERICRL NC.
6
%
&
%
3, SU-~& OR COURT OF Th \TE OF CALIFORI.
9 THE COUNTY OF *AMENTO
10)
a
11}, JAMES M. “IN, dba JAMES L. “~ ) CASENL -2008-00022710
MACKLIN & TRUCTION Sb )
1 % ) MOTIONT, “LUDE
Maintiff, ) TESTIMONY . _AINTIFF’S
WITNESSES
1 ,
2 PICRETE, INC.;IN. RIAL ) F...
IO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
May-29-2009 4:49 pm
Case Number: CGC-07-274310
Filing Date: May-29-2009 4:48
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02511525
ORDER
IARLINE COMPTON et ai VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIB
001002511525
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD
PO BOX 6169,
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169
(15) 898-1555
...
