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

126-150 of 297 results

RODRIGUEZ V. THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Respondent’s motion to exclude witnesses was granted in part and denied in part on October 21, 2016 to be considered again by the administrative hearing officer. The administrative hearing on Petitioner’s termination was held over four days on October 24 through 27, 2017 before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The motion to exclude was taken up again and the hearing officer excluded three of Petitioner’s inmate witnesses as cumulative.

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2018

EAVES VS. ASHLAND, INC.

And Shell has done nothing in its motion to exclude considerations of general jurisdiction. Thus, the Court declines to reconsider the Eaves 1 motion. Of course, no such motion was ever made in Eaves 2. Thus, there is nothing to reconsider in that case.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2018

SHARON MEHDIAN VS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CA STATE UNIV

The plaintiff therein failed to serve a timely expert designation, and the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to exclude the expert’s testimony. The court of appeals affirmed, but noted that the trial court could not rely on the mandatory exclusion provision, and must instead rely on its discretion.

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2018

ESTATE OF JOHN SMITH CLARK

Memorandum of costs items 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), and 1(f) all relate to Carey’s September 6, 2017, motion to exclude expert opinions of Objectors’ expert witness Kevin Hess. That motion also sought an award of monetary sanctions including filing fees. The court initially awarded sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 in connection with that motion, which was less than requested in that motion. (Minute Order, filed Sept. 14, 2017.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2018

MARION RING VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of retained experts Dr. Rosenberg and Mr. Balaban testimony based on the untimely designation, served on March 1, 2018, is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this order. DATED: April 5, 2018 ___________________________ Elaine Lu Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2018

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARCY KRINSK VS. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Elizabeth Howlett, is inadmissible; however, as stated within the concurrent ruling, Defendants' Motion to exclude Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions has been DENIED; therefore, at this time, Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions are generally admissible. Regarding the claim for restitution, Business & Professions Code section 17203 is confined to restoration of any interest in "money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition."

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARCY KRINSK VS. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Elizabeth Howlett, is inadmissible; however, as stated within the concurrent ruling, Defendants' Motion to exclude Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions has been DENIED; therefore, at this time, Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions are generally admissible. Regarding the claim for restitution, Business & Professions Code section 17203 is confined to restoration of any interest in "money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition."

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARCY KRINSK VS. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Elizabeth Howlett, is inadmissible; however, as stated within the concurrent ruling, Defendants' Motion to exclude Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions has been DENIED; therefore, at this time, Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions are generally admissible. Regarding the claim for restitution, Business & Professions Code section 17203 is confined to restoration of any interest in "money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition."

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MEGHA V. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

Based on the court’s 2-27-18 Minute Order, Defendant’s-Belkin International, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Fire Investigator Dan Bonelli Based on Spoliation of Evidence (filed on 1-24-18) set on 3-13-18 off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2018

ETAN MILLER VS JOLANTA WALTER

Accordingly, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion to exclude the photographs, the estimates of property damage, and the cost of repairs because they are relevant to issue causation of plaintiff’s claimed injuries.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BARBARA TRYON VS. MISSION OPTOMETRY, INC. ET AL

Williamson is impeding efforts to obtain Plaintiff's own honest testimony based on her personal recollection, or otherwise interfering with or hindering the examination, then Defendants may renew their motion to exclude Mr. Williamson from the deposition. The Court finds that there is substantial justification for Defendants' positions and therefore the Plaintiff's request for discovery sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2018

  • Judge

    Roger Mead

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

WILLIAM MORSCHAUSER VS STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

Therefore, the motion to exclude Ian Foster is granted. CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The following trial and pretrial dates are set and Case Management Orders are made in this matter (note that if any date in the body of the order conflicts with dates in the table immediately below, the dates in the table control): Note 1 Select Mediator 7/20/2018 Note 1 Complete Mediation 10/17/2018 Note 1 Post-Mediation Hearing / Further Case Management Conference per CRC 3.723 10/18/2018 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2018

MEGHA V. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

(filed on 1-12-18) set on 2-27-18 off calendar; (4) The court takes Defendant’s—Belkin Internation, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Fire Investigator Dan Bonelli Based on Spoliation of Evidence (filed on 1-24-18) set on 2-13-18 off calendar; (5) The court vacates the 3-16-18 Mandatory Settlement Conference; and (6) The court vacates the 4-6-18 Jury Trial.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2018

ESTATE OF JOHN SMITH CLARK

Memorandum of costs items 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), and 1(f) all relate to the September 6, 2017, Carey’s motion to exclude expert opinions of Objectors’ expert witness Kevin Hess. That motion also sought an award of monetary sanctions including filing fees. The court awarded sanctions in connection with that motion, albeit less than requested in that motion. (Minute Order, filed Sept. 14, 2017.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

BENITEZ VS. LEE

Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert advanced to 2/7/18.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2018

BELISARIO VS. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INCORPORATED

The Motion to exclude the expert, Paul Karpf, Plaintiff Aida Belisario designated in June 2016, is DENIED. The Motion to exclude the expert, Michael Carrigan, Plaintiff SALVADOR L. BELISARIO II more recently designated, is GRANTED. Defendants' objections (ROA # 294) to Plaintiff's designation of Karpf are OVERRULED, and the objections to Carrigan are SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN PAVONE PC VS WILLIS

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Motion to Exclude Myzsa Willis from testifying as to Events Related to Contract Formation and for an Order Compelling an Independent Medical Examination and for Sanctions in the amount of $6300 is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN PAVONE PC VS WILLIS

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Motion to Exclude Myzsa Willis from testifying as to Events Related to Contract Formation and for an Order Compelling an Independent Medical Examination and for Sanctions in the amount of $6300 is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN PAVONE PC VS WILLIS

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Motion to Exclude Myzsa Willis from testifying as to Events Related to Contract Formation and for an Order Compelling an Independent Medical Examination and for Sanctions in the amount of $6300 is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

On December 11, 2017, the Court granted defendant Adam Shacknai's motion to exclude any testimony by Dr. Wecht on the grounds that he was not properly designated as a retained expert. ROA # 740. Plaintiffs now seek leave to designate Dr. Wecht as a retained expert. Discussion The Court may allow a party who has timely exchanged expert witness information to augment that party's expert witness list by adding the name of a subsequently retained expert witness. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a). 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

On December 11, 2017, the Court granted defendant Adam Shacknai's motion to exclude any testimony by Dr. Wecht on the grounds that he was not properly designated as a retained expert. ROA # 740. Plaintiffs now seek leave to designate Dr. Wecht as a retained expert. Discussion The Court may allow a party who has timely exchanged expert witness information to augment that party's expert witness list by adding the name of a subsequently retained expert witness. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a). 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

On December 11, 2017, the Court granted defendant Adam Shacknai's motion to exclude any testimony by Dr. Wecht on the grounds that he was not properly designated as a retained expert. ROA # 740. Plaintiffs now seek leave to designate Dr. Wecht as a retained expert. Discussion The Court may allow a party who has timely exchanged expert witness information to augment that party's expert witness list by adding the name of a subsequently retained expert witness. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a). 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

On December 11, 2017, the Court granted defendant Adam Shacknai's motion to exclude any testimony by Dr. Wecht on the grounds that he was not properly designated as a retained expert. ROA # 740. Plaintiffs now seek leave to designate Dr. Wecht as a retained expert. Discussion The Court may allow a party who has timely exchanged expert witness information to augment that party's expert witness list by adding the name of a subsequently retained expert witness. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a). 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

On December 11, 2017, the Court granted defendant Adam Shacknai's motion to exclude any testimony by Dr. Wecht on the grounds that he was not properly designated as a retained expert. ROA # 740. Plaintiffs now seek leave to designate Dr. Wecht as a retained expert. Discussion The Court may allow a party who has timely exchanged expert witness information to augment that party's expert witness list by adding the name of a subsequently retained expert witness. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (a). 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « 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.