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

Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude

101-125 of 302 results

DAVID K GOTTLIEB VS RAY B BOWEN JR ET AL

Given the March 27, 2018 trial date and plaintiff’s representation that the two depositions are to be held on January 24 and February 1, 2018, the motion to exclude or compel plaintiff’s expert is moot and defendants have suffered no actual prejudice. To the extent defendants seek to recover their court reporter cancellation fee charges, defendants do not refute plaintiff’s contention that defendants unreasonably delayed giving notice to the court reporter and otherwise could have avoided the charge.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2018

30-2013-00649338-CU-JR-CXC

Defendant Shea Homes, Inc.’s Request for and Joinder in Motion to Exclude Declaration of Brian A. Dempsey Filed in Support of Class Certification (Related Case No. 30-2013-00649466, Lindgren v. Shea Homes, Inc.):

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2017

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

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

CASONOVA, PEDRO VS. NONA, MARY A

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Defense Expert Richard Robertson, Ph.D. – DENIED. The Court finds that Defendant’s failure to initially disclose Dr. Robertson appears to be the result of inadvertence rather than an intentional ploy to place Plaintiff at a disadvantage. Moreover, defense counsel’s declaration establishes that Dr. Robertson was in fact, retained after the initial disclosure date. Therefore, Defendant’s use of the supplemental disclosure procedure appears appropriate in this instance.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2019

HINA'S TEA, ET AL VS. XXXX D. XXX, ET AL

Motion to exclude testimony of Gordon L'Estrange The motion is denied. The motion is denied because it is premature and there is no basis for exclusion as a sanction. 5. Motion to exclude written communications The motion is denied without prejudice. Defendant seeks to exclude two letters from the Department of Development Services on the grounds of hearsay and pursuant to Evidence Code section 352.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

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

NAYSHTUT VS. COMERCIALIZADORA TRAVEL ADVISORY S A DE C V

Defendant Concord Servicing Corporation's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Designated Medical Experts or Medical Evidence is GRANTED. (ROA 458.) Expert testimony regarding Plaintiff's medical condition is not relevant to any of Plaintiff' causes of action in this case. Defendant's motion is a motion in limine. "Unless otherwise directed by the court, counsel must file and serve motions in limine and opposition thereto five court days and two court days respectively prior to trial call."

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

REBECCA OSBORNE VS. TODD FARM SERVICE

s motion to exclude and/or strike plaintiff's supplemental expert witnesses, and Joinder of Gary Berrington and Phyllis Berrington. GRANT the motion. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to designate her experts pursuant to CCP § 2034.260. Having failed to comply with this section, she is not entitled to supplement pursuant to CCP § 2034.280.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2014

NAYSHTUT VS. COMERCIALIZADORA TRAVEL ADVISORY S A DE C V

Defendant Concord Servicing Corporation's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Designated Medical Experts or Medical Evidence is GRANTED. (ROA 458.) Expert testimony regarding Plaintiff's medical condition is not relevant to any of Plaintiff' causes of action in this case. Defendant's motion is a motion in limine. "Unless otherwise directed by the court, counsel must file and serve motions in limine and opposition thereto five court days and two court days respectively prior to trial call."

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NAYSHTUT VS. COMERCIALIZADORA TRAVEL ADVISORY S A DE C V

Defendant Concord Servicing Corporation's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Designated Medical Experts or Medical Evidence is GRANTED. (ROA 458.) Expert testimony regarding Plaintiff's medical condition is not relevant to any of Plaintiff' causes of action in this case. Defendant's motion is a motion in limine. "Unless otherwise directed by the court, counsel must file and serve motions in limine and opposition thereto five court days and two court days respectively prior to trial call."

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JIMMY GARCIA VS PHONG TRAN ET AL

Conclusion and Order Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s newly designated expert witnesses is granted. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: March 5, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA VS AU ZONE INVESTMENTS #2 L.P. ET AL

los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority v. au zone investments #2 ,et al, bc550692, MAY 11, 2017 tentative order re: plaintiff los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority’s ccp §1260.040 motion to exclude expert opinion of defendant 99 cents only stores’ goodwill appraiser, daniel c. curren Plaintiff LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY’S motion to exclude Daniel C. Curren’s expert opinion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2017

GISH VS LE SAGE

Le Sage motion to exclude the trial testimony of non-retained expert Karen Sorensen, Ph.D. is GRANTED. The Hon. Linda Quinn issued an order in the parties' family court case, excluding Dr. Sorensen's testimony in that case due to the stipulated order that information disclosed in the family therapy sessions would remain confidential and would not used for any purpose, including litigation.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

KATHY PAULINE MORRIS VS HAKOB BABAJANYAN ET AL

.: BC665885 Hearing Date: December 11, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Motion to exclude plaintiff’s Designated Expert Defendants Hakob Babajanyan and TLA Limousine, Inc. (“Defendants”) move to preclude Plaintiff Kathy Pauline Morris (“Plaintiff”) from calling her expert Hyman Gross, M.D. (“Gross”) as a witness at trial. Trial is set for March 3, 2019. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to the date of the final status conference: February 14, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

30-2013-00649338-CU-JR-CXC

The court on its own motion will issue a stay [effective 5/5/17] on all other related certification motions, summary judgment/summary adjudication of issues motions, any pending motion to Exclude Expert Witness pending [Except Del Rivero], and any other motions anticipated or filed. The stay will remain in effect until 10 August 2017 at 3:00 PM [the date and time of the next status conference]. Counsel for Del Rivero shall prepare the appropriate order for the court’s signature. 2.

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2017

GISH VS LE SAGE

Le Sage motion to exclude the trial testimony of non-retained expert Karen Sorensen, Ph.D. is GRANTED. The Hon. Linda Quinn issued an order in the parties' family court case, excluding Dr. Sorensen's testimony in that case due to the stipulated order that information disclosed in the family therapy sessions would remain confidential and would not used for any purpose, including litigation.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

GISH VS LE SAGE

Le Sage motion to exclude the trial testimony of non-retained expert Karen Sorensen, Ph.D. is GRANTED. The Hon. Linda Quinn issued an order in the parties' family court case, excluding Dr. Sorensen's testimony in that case due to the stipulated order that information disclosed in the family therapy sessions would remain confidential and would not used for any purpose, including litigation.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

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

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

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

ELSA ECHANDI VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

The motion to exclude the experts is therefore granted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SHANNON COLHOUN VS LOU CHAR FULLER PROPERTY LLC ET AL

Tentative rulings rate: motions in limine Plaintiffs motion to: Exclude unrelated medical conditions: grant in part, gynecological treatment will not be admitted, some evidence of psychological treatment may be admitted. 4. Admit evidence of changes to pool: deny 7. Exclude testimony of Morse: deny 8. Exclude evidence that was subject of subpoena quashed by court: deny 9. Exclude testimony of Albert Stone: deny 11. Exclude testimony regarding additional testing by Loud: deny 12.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

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

  « 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.