What is a Motion in Limine to Exclude?

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

Useful Resources for Motion in Limine – Exclude

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude

76-100 of 302 results

SMITH V. CITY OF PLACERVILLE

Having reviewed and considered the arguments and evidence submitted, the court denies the motion to exclude James LaCroix from testifying as an expert witness for the defendant City. TENTATIVE RULING # 1: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT WITNESS IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS V.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

LA COUNTY METRO TRANS AUTHORITY VS NEW PACIFIC CANON LLC

Defendant does not oppose a bifurcated trial on the issue, but does oppose this motion to exclude the claim. Given the fact intensive nature of the dispute and the law regarding condemnation trials, the Court finds that bifurcation would be appropriate. The issues central to the Klopping claim of unreasonable delay and oppressive conduct are disputed questions of fact that are more appropriately dealt with at such a court trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

JAMES DEMETRIADES VS YELP INC

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT YELP INC.’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINION Background James Demetriades (“Demetriades”) filed this action on May 3, 2012 against Defendant Yelp, Inc. (“Yelp”) seeking injunctive relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq. Multiversal Enterprises-Mammoth Properties, LLC (“Multiversal”) substituted in as plaintiff on February 25, 2015. Yelp now moves for an order excluding the expert opinion of Dr. David W.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2019

SCRIPPS HEALTH VS. PARDEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The motion to exclude expert damages analyses of Darin Libby and Gary London, filed by defendant Pardee Construction Company, is denied without prejudice. The motion is an improper in limine motion. The minute order will be the order of the Court. Plaintiff is directed to serve notice on all parties within 2 court days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SCRIPPS HEALTH VS. PARDEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The motion to exclude expert damages analyses of Darin Libby and Gary London, filed by defendant Pardee Construction Company, is denied without prejudice. The motion is an improper in limine motion. The minute order will be the order of the Court. Plaintiff is directed to serve notice on all parties within 2 court days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LAWSON VS FCA US LLC

Defendant further objects to the motion on the grounds that it seeks expert fees, costs and expenses which the court previously ordered Plaintiffs to incur following hearing on Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiffs’’ Experts. Based on these arguments, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs should recover no more than $45,294.65 in total fees and costs.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2018

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VS ABBOTT, MARISA

Instead, Das filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (the “Motion”) on October 24, 2018. Because the Court has ordered that this action be reclassified, the Court declines to consider the Motion at this time and it is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. The Court set an OSC Hearing re: Failure to Pay Reclassification Fee for February 13, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HORTON VS TRIDENT SOCIETY INC

The Motion to exclude Robbins from testifying is DENIED; however, Robbins will not be permitted to express legal opinions. The Court will HEAR on the nature and scope of Robbins' permissible opinions. No. 2 (ROA # 323): To exclude evidence of Plaintiff's alleged business expenses not timely produced or disclosed during discovery – DENY.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HORTON VS TRIDENT SOCIETY INC

The Motion to exclude Robbins from testifying is DENIED; however, Robbins will not be permitted to express legal opinions. The Court will HEAR on the nature and scope of Robbins' permissible opinions. No. 2 (ROA # 323): To exclude evidence of Plaintiff's alleged business expenses not timely produced or disclosed during discovery – DENY.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARY WEISSMAN V. CVS PHARMACY, INC.

The motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Chang will be denied.

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2018

MARY MEEKS RITTER VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

On July 3, 2018, Defendant moved ex parte to specially-set the hearing on his motion to exclude evidence of psychiatric or psychologic injuries or to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and to augment expert witness list. On August 31, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion, finding there was not good cause to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and expert augmentation as to a neuropsychiatrist, because Defendant was not diligent—defense counsel subpoenaed Dr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARY MEEKS RITTER VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

On July 3, 2018, Defendant moved ex parte to specially-set the hearing on his motion to exclude evidence of psychiatric or psychologic injuries or to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and to augment expert witness list. On August 31, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion, finding there was no good cause to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and expert augmentation as to a neuropsychiatrist, because Defendant was not diligent in that Defense counsel subpoenaed Dr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

MARY MEEKS RITTER VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

On July 3, 2018, Defendant moved ex parte to specially-set the hearing on his motion to exclude evidence of psychiatric or psychologic injuries or to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and to augment expert witness list. On August 31, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion, finding there was no good cause to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and expert augmentation as to a neuropsychiatrist, because Defendant was not diligent in that Defense counsel subpoenaed Dr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DIAZ-SIDBURY V. STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AUXILIARY

However, it is not necessary to strike the supplemental 10 declaration. 11 Defendant’s motion to exclude and/or strike the supplemental declaration is DENIED. 12 B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2018

ERIC S BARTON ET AL VS RODNEY R RICE III ET AL

Bank of America’s Motion in Limine Number 1 is GRANTED, including the motion to exclude the testimony of Leonard Matheson to the extent such testimony addresses the issues excluded by this order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

SO CAL BUILDING & RESTORATION INC VS. PRAVA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC

The Motion to exclude the Testimony of Hugo Alonso is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE until the hearing of in limine motions at trial.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SO CAL BUILDING & RESTORATION INC VS. PRAVA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC

The Motion to exclude the Testimony of Hugo Alonso is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE until the hearing of in limine motions at trial.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHRIST VS. GUERRERO, ET AL

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Exclude Supplemental Expert Witness: Plaintiff, Christene Christ moves to exclude Defendants, Oscar and Patricia Guerrero’s supplemental expert, Dr. Michael Levin from testifying at trial pursuant to CCP § 2034.280(a). Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,255. In their initial disclosure of expert witnesses, Defendants identified Mark A. Schrumpf, M.D. as a retained expert. The substance of his testimony was described in defense counsel’s declaration.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2018

CHRIST VS. GUERRERO, ET AL

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Exclude Supplemental Expert Witness: Plaintiff, Christene Christ moves to exclude Defendants, Oscar and Patricia Guerrero’s supplemental expert, Dr. Michael Levin from testifying at trial pursuant to CCP § 2034.280(a). Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,255. In their initial disclosure of expert witnesses, Defendants identified Mark A. Schrumpf, M.D. as a retained expert. The substance of his testimony was described in defense counsel’s declaration.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2018

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

The Court has been informed this matter has been resolved by the parties. (2) Defendants' CONTINUED Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is MOOT in part and GRANTED in part. The Court has been informed the parties have resolved the issues with the experts, save for the designation of Jason Billups. Mr. Billups has not been made available for deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

The Court has been informed this matter has been resolved by the parties. (2) Defendants' CONTINUED Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is MOOT in part and GRANTED in part. The Court has been informed the parties have resolved the issues with the experts, save for the designation of Jason Billups. Mr. Billups has not been made available for deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

The Court has been informed this matter has been resolved by the parties. (2) Defendants' CONTINUED Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is MOOT in part and GRANTED in part. The Court has been informed the parties have resolved the issues with the experts, save for the designation of Jason Billups. Mr. Billups has not been made available for deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

The Court has been informed this matter has been resolved by the parties. (2) Defendants' CONTINUED Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is MOOT in part and GRANTED in part. The Court has been informed the parties have resolved the issues with the experts, save for the designation of Jason Billups. Mr. Billups has not been made available for deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RAMIREZ V. HILLCREST TRAVEL PLAZA ET AL.

Prior to trial of the bad faith action, the trial court granted the insured's motion to exclude evidence of the insurer's defense of advice of counsel, on the ground that it was new matter that should have been affirmatively alleged in the answer. The Insurer sought a writ. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the Plaintiff’s Petition for a writ and issued mandamus directing the trial judge to permit introduction of the evidence.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2018

METROPOLITAN INDUSTRIES INC VS SPECIAL SERVICES FOR GROUPS I

HEIL, INC.’s Motion to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses: (1) Seb Ficcadenti, (2) Wayne Scott, (3) James Kinsel, and (4) Alan Reed is GRANTED. CCP §2034.300. Moving Party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2018

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.