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 Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude

76-100 of 297 results

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

ALBRECHT VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The motion to exclude Henson’s expert testimony is denied without prejudice to the right of the defendants to object when his testimony is offered at trial. Analysis: Given that this is a nonjury trial, there is no reason that the admissibility of this evidence must be decided in advance. If the Court were to find that the motion should be denied on the merits, then the Court would have to evaluate the evidence twice: once when ruling on the motion and once when the evidence is offered.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

REY NICOLAS FLORES ET AL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY O

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Evidence Concerning Pathological Slides Produced After Discovery Cut-off Date and Not Disclosed in Expert Designation filed on, is 8/10/18 is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. This motion seeks to exclude expert testimony at trial concerning 12 additional slides and an addendum report prepared by a new pathologist, concerning tissue samples of Plaintiff’s placenta. It is not a motion concerning discovery. Motions in limine are heard by the trial court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

Wikstrom will not be excluded from testifying at this time. (2) Defendants' Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is GRANTED, in part. The issue of the deposition of Russ Johnson has been resolved as the parties have agreed to a deposition on August 20, 2018 in Irvine, California. The issue as to Mr. Wikstrom is resolved by the ruling above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

Wikstrom will not be excluded from testifying at this time. (2) Defendants' Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is GRANTED, in part. The issue of the deposition of Russ Johnson has been resolved as the parties have agreed to a deposition on August 20, 2018 in Irvine, California. The issue as to Mr. Wikstrom is resolved by the ruling above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

Wikstrom will not be excluded from testifying at this time. (2) Defendants' Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is GRANTED, in part. The issue of the deposition of Russ Johnson has been resolved as the parties have agreed to a deposition on August 20, 2018 in Irvine, California. The issue as to Mr. Wikstrom is resolved by the ruling above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.