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

101-125 of 297 results

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

XXXXX A XXXXXXXX ET AL VS XXXXX T XXXXXXX ET AL

Defendants' Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied. The Court will address Motions in Limine before trial.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

THE ENPEX CORPORATION VS. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC

The Motion to exclude Mr. McCullough's opinion testimony is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The alternative Motion to conduct a hearing pursuant to California Evidence Code section 402 is GRANTED. The Court will HEAR from counsel on the timing and the scope of the 402 hearing.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE ENPEX CORPORATION VS. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC

The Motion to exclude Mr. McCullough's opinion testimony is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The alternative Motion to conduct a hearing pursuant to California Evidence Code section 402 is GRANTED. The Court will HEAR from counsel on the timing and the scope of the 402 hearing.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE ENPEX CORPORATION VS. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC

The Motion to exclude Mr. McCullough's opinion testimony is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The alternative Motion to conduct a hearing pursuant to California Evidence Code section 402 is GRANTED. The Court will HEAR from counsel on the timing and the scope of the 402 hearing.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DEREK ALAN WILKINSON VS. JOSE REAL

Additionally, Spina's contention that §2034.300 requires that a motion to exclude expert testimony for failure to comply with the expert designation requirements must be made to the trial court is a colorable argument because §2034.300 makes specific reference to "the trial court," in contrast to most provisions of the Discovery Act that merely refer to "the court" generally.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2018

BOY VS ZIMMER INC

(3) Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Damage Experts is DENIED. "[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or 3) speculative." (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 771–772.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

BOY VS ZIMMER INC

(3) Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Damage Experts is DENIED. "[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or 3) speculative." (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 771–772.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

BOY VS ZIMMER INC

(3) Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Damage Experts is DENIED. "[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or 3) speculative." (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 771–772.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

BOY VS ZIMMER INC

(3) Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Damage Experts is DENIED. "[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or 3) speculative." (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 771–772.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

MOORE, PAULINE VS LUCRECIA, MAYRA

Based on the foregoing, the motion to exclude the deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness is granted. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAURA VIVIAN PEREZ ET AL VS GONZALO F RUIZ ET AL

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness, Michael Ashley is DENIED. Both motions raise the same issue: whether Defendant is entitled to an order permitting the supplemental designation of Michael Ashley as an expert in commercial motor vehicle safety, compliance, and maintenance. The court may grant leave for a party to augment an expert witness list if the party engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information. Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ROBINSON V. ARSHI

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude expert is granted. As stated in Fairfax v. Lords (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1021, “simultaneous” as that term is used in Code of Civil Procedure section 2034, requires expert disclosure by both sides at the same time. Defendant Arshi failed to comply with this requirement. Arshi’s argument that Fairfax can be distinguished on the basis that in Fairfax the need for expert testimony was obvious based on the allegations in the complaint is unpersuasive.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

HALE VS LISTREPORTS, INC.

The defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the documents was not prompt because plaintiff was given copies of them by the defendant in discovery by August 2017 is not new. The defendant’s argument that the court was not given copies of the actual bate stamped documents would have been known to the defendant when the motion was filed, argued and the May 4, 2018 order was made; the defendant has not established that this “fact” is new.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2018

ARMINE GRIGORIAN VS FADWA KHALIL ET AL

.: BC690679 Hearing Date: June 20, 2018 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to Exclude EVIDENCE Defendants Aziz Khalil and Fadwa Khalil (“Defendants”) move to exclude a video recorded by Plaintiff Armine Grigorian. Trial is currently set for July 17, 2019. Defendants’ motion is denied without prejudice. This Court will not make a finding as to the admissibility of evidence for the purposes of trial. This motion is more appropriately ruled upon by the trial judge.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TED HEBEBRAND ET AL VS. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.

Notice Of Motion To Exclude Late Disclosed Witness George Syester On Asbestos Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, June 13, 2018 in Department 503, Line 1. Defendant Red Feather Construction Inc.'s motion to exclude late-disclosed witness George Syester is denied. Defendant failed to meets its burden of showing that Plaintiffs willfully concealed Mr. Syester's name. A motion to exclude the witness may be properly brought as a motion in limine at trial.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2018

MINOO HENDESSI VS DR MICHAEL ZADEH

Assuming his deposition is taken, and Defendants believe the substance of that testimony is improper at trial, then a motion to exclude that testimony and evidence should properly be made to the trial court The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. Section 2025.420(a). Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s designation demanding that Plaintiff withdraw Dr. Klein. Motion, Ex. I. There is no discussion about preventing his deposition or precluding his testimony at trial.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2018

MARION RING VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Court granted the motion to exclude on the basis that Defendant had not yet filed the proper motion for late designation. Now that the Defendant has filed the instant motion, the Court may determine whether Defendant may designate its experts after the deadline. Based on the record before the Court, Defendant has provided sufficient information to allow for the late designation of experts.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2018

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JACQUELINE ROSALES ET AL VS EVAN ANDREW DIRECTO

Motion to Exclude At this time, Plaintiffs move to exclude Bruggman’s deposition testimony from being used as evidence in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DAISY CALLEJA VS JOSE CHAVEZ

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Retained Experts, or in the alternative, to Compel Said Expert’s Depositions, filed on 4/9/18, is DENIED. The court has discretion to exclude any party’s expert witness if that party has unreasonably failed to make that expert available for deposition. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300. Plaintiff has not shown grounds for excluding Defendant’s experts. On 4/10/18, the court DENIED Plaintiff’s ex parte application to exclude Defendant’s experts.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

GABRIEL ROBLES VS MOHAMMADREZA YAZDI D D S

Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, provides evidence that he made a motion to exclude any evidence concerning the two other providers’ care and treatment, on the ground that Defendant’s designated expert, in deposition, affirmatively indicated he believed one of the two complied with the standard of care, and indicated he lacked an opinion concerning whether the other complied with the standard of care.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

BAKER GOVERN & BAKER INC VS A PLUS FABRICS INC

Defendant may re-file the motion, if appropriate, after service of the bill of particulars is made to the correct full address, and also file a proof of service for the motion to exclude evidence with Plaintiff's counsel's correct address.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VS COMMISSION ON PROFES

Kolodziej explains that the motion to exclude student statements also was, inter alia, intended to highlight to the ALJ that LAUSD’s case was supported primarily by hearsay. Kolodziej Supp. Decl. ¶7. The ALJ denied the motion, but did not conclude that it was frivolous. Kolodziej Supp. Decl. ¶7.

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  « 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.