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...
Chris A. Tarkington (SBN 43132) [email protected]
Stephen F. O’Neill (SBN 62317) [email protected]
2 Norman L. Chong (SBN 111436) [email protected]
3 | TARKINGTON, O’NEILL, BARRACK & CHONG
A Professional Corporation
4 || 100 Stony Point Road, Suite 270
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
5 ||Telephone: (707) 576-1380.
Facsimile: (707) 544-3144
6
Attorneys for Defendant
7 \|RALPH MAHER
8
9
a SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1" CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
"2 NORMA ANN MULLIGAN, et al., Cas...
1 MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
JOHN S. DURRANT (SBN 217345); [email protected]
2 CHRISTOPHER A. ELLIOTT (SBN 266226); [email protected]
ELECTRONICALLY
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 ...
22
23
25
28
EHLERS LAW ORATION
WESLEY C.J. Eh- (SBN 181537)
ARIDGET C, BEA’ “BN 204041)
0 Capitol Avenue, . 720
»mento, CA 95816-.
1 ae: (916) 442-030.
Fac »: (916) 650-1039
e-ma. s(@ehlerslawcorp.cu
e-mail: [email protected]
JEAN M. t- ER, ESQ., A PROF. PORATION
JEAN M. HC > (SBN 214106)
2600 Capitol A a, Suite 320
Sacramento, CA 7
‘Telephone: 10)
mail: [email protected] jiere
seys for: Plaintiff Ei e INMENTAL STEW SHIP FOUNDATIC.
SUPER: BURT OF CALIFO.
IN AND FOR TH: “ey INTY OF SACRAN 9...
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Entered by:
Civil Department — Non-Limited
TITLE OF CASE:
Kholoud Hussain vs Todd Bergthold’
: Case Number:
CORRECTED LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER Seen 49CECG03703
Hearing Date: February 27, 2020 Hearing Type: Show Cause Regard Harassment
Department: 404 Judge/Temp. Judge: Dalesandro, Samuel
Court Clerk: J. Yang Reporter/Tape: Not Recorded
‘Appearing Parties:
Plaintiff: Kholoud Hussain Defendant: Todd Bergthold
(Counsel: Rose...
MurPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP
wo wo NN
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F Superior Court of California F
| County of Butte |
STEVEN A. LAMON, SBN 124853
BROOKE E. WASHBURN, SBN 248114 L L
MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP E E
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850 D D
Sacramento, California 95814 Kyrie Flory , Clerk
Telephone: (916) 446-2300 By eet Deputy
Facsimile: (916) 503-4000 Mocironicaty PLE
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
_ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Entered by:
Civil Department — Non-Limited
TITLE OF CASE:
Kholoud Hussain vs Amy Bergthold
Case Number:
CORRECTED LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER 19CECG03702
Hearing Date: February 27, 2020 Hearing Type: Show Cause Regard Harassment
Department: 404 Judge/Temp. Judge: Dalesandro, Samuel
Court Clerk: J. Yang Reporter/Tape: Not Recorded
Appearing Parties:
Plaintiff: Kholoud Hussain Defendant: Amy Bergthold
7
Counsel: Rosemarie Ru...
SUPERIOR COURT OF CAI RNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO ¥
Civil Departr:......:- Non-Limited 7
TITLE OF CASE:
Kholoud Hussain vs Todd Bergthold
Case Number:
LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER 49CECG03703
Hearing Date: February 27, 2020 Hearing Type: Show Cause Regard Harassment
Department: 404 Judge/Temp. Judge: Dalesandro, Samuel
Court Clerk: J. Yang Reporter/Tape: Not Recorded
[Appearing Parties:
Plaintiff: Kholoud Hussain Defendant: Todd Bergthold
ICounsel: Rosemarie Rusca C...
ABHIRAJ CHOWDHURY, ESQ.(SBN 318447
PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES
Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Telephone: (925) 225 6838
Facsimile: (855) 732 9437
...
1 MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
JOHN S. DURRANT (SBN 217345); [email protected]
2 CHRISTOPHER A. ELLIOTT (SBN 266226); [email protected]
ELECTRONICALLY
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 ...
ABHIRAJ CHOWDHURY, ESQ.(SBN 318447
PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES
Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Telephone: (925) 225 6838
Facsimile: (855) 732 9437
...
ABHIRAJ CHOWDHURY, ESQ.(SBN 318447
PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES
Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Telephone: (925) 225 6838
Facsimile: (855) 732 9437
...
ABHIRAJ CHOWDHURY, ESQ.(SBN 318447
PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES
Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Telephone: (925) 225 6838
Facsimile: (855) 732 9437
...
MONICA J. BURNEIKIS, SBN 239860
EISEL RENTSA URNEIKIS
350 Sansome Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 788
Facsimile: (415) 398
mail: [email protected] law.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
SARAH JOY ANNE C...
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
‘A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
e
2
650 CALIFORNIA STREET, 26" FLOOR
3 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108-2615
T: (415) 981-7210 - F: (415) 391-6965
4||SARA M. PETERS (State Bar #260610)
[email protected]plawoffice.com
5 || CHRISTIAN R. JAGUSCH (State Bar #306753)
[email protected]
6 ||ANDREW P. MCDEVITT (State Bar #271371)
amedevinvewalcuplawofticescom
7 || ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MASON
MCNEES,
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALI...
MurPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP
wo wo NN
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F Superior Court of California F
| County of Butte |
STEVEN A. LAMON, SBN 124853
BROOKE E. WASHBURN, SBN 248114 L L
MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP E E
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850 D D
Sacramento, California 95814 Kyrie Flory , Clerk
Telephone: (916) 446-2300 By eet Deputy
Facsimile: (916) 503-4000 Mocironicaty PLE
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Co em ND
CLEBK OF, THE CO
San Francisco County Superior Court
FEB 07 2020
b j URT
BY /
Deputy Clerks
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DANA SIMMONS and DONALD GIUSTI, CASE NO. CGC-17-560838
Action Filed: August 21, 2017
)
)
Plaintiffs, ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
; MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAIN[IFFS’
vs. ) DISCLOSED EXPERTS FROM TRIAL
AGESONG LIVING, LLC; AGESONG, } DISCOVERY
INC; PACIFIC INSTITUTE; and DOES 1 )
to 50, ) Date: February 6, 2020
2 Time: 9:0...
