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

Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude

126-150 of 298 results

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

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, LLC VS RAMIN FARZAM

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence concerning the Estoppel Certificate is DENIED. IV.

  • Hearing

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

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CRAIG VS ARNO

Defendant's request that Plaintiff not be allowed to testify at trial is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; however, if Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court's order directing him to appear at a deposition within twenty (20) days, Defendant may renew the Motion to exclude Plaintiff from testifying at trial. Plaintiff's failure to appear at a deposition and produce the requested documents was without substantial justification.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FAUTT HOMES CORP VS. RAYMOND MARIOLLE

At or before trial, a valid motion to exclude hearsay matters may very well lie. But it is not a pleadings motion. None of the remaining matters cross-defendants sought to have stricken is “irrelevant, false, or improper.” It is not improper or irrelevant to allege matters related to the construction project at issue. And the allegations are not, from the face of the pleading, false.

  • Hearing

CAROLYN PEARSON VS JOHN CHON YOUNG KIM ET AL

Motion to Exclude Because the motion to supplement or augment is denied, the motion to exclude is granted. Richaud, supra, at 85. Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. Temporary Scheduling Change: 1. Parties who wish to be heard on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] confirming possible changes in the date and time of the hearing; 2.

  • Hearing

ROBERT BOYD VS. WESTECH INDUSTRIES INC

Defendant's #1 – Motion to Exclude Evidence of Claims of Overtime not previously disclosed in Plaintiffs' discovery – DENIED, there is no evidence of prejudice or surprise or that Defendant was unaware of the basis for Plaintiffs' claims. The argument appears to revolve around a concept that Plaintiffs evidence will be unsupported and lack foundation at the time of trial. That issue will be resolved at the time of trial without any prejudice to Defendant in a Court trial.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NEFTALI V AGUILAR VS BLH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The court's tentative ruling is to: Grant the motion to exclude 367 days from the computation of the five year limitation in CCP§ 583.310 which requires that cases be brought to trial within five years of filing, or dismissed. The code itself provides for exclusions from the time count, and the courts of appeal have consistently held that any showing of constant effort in the case is sufficient to avoid such a drastic outcome.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CREDIT BUREAU OF SANTA MARIA VS SYLVIA VASQUEZ

Vasquez’s motion to exclude evidence was not timely served and the court orders it off calendar.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MARIA GAMA VS ROBERT LEIGHTY ET AL

Motion to exclude defense experts The motion will be denied at this time.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

PETER GERLACH AND BRADINA LLC VS. SHAVE IT NATION INC.

The Court intends to DENY Plaintiffs Peter Gerlach and Bradina LLC's motion to exclude Defendants' expert witness Karl Schulze from testifying at trial for the following reasons: (1) The evidence shows that following the Court's 9/3/10 minute order allowing Defendants to designate a tardy expert witness, Defendants offerred to produce Mr. Schulze for deposition on 10/11/10 and 11/3/10, both of which dates were agreeable to Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

HARVEY STONE ET AL VS PHILIP STRAW D C ET AL

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the experts designated by the defendant, and that because the jury eventually entered judgment in the defendant’s favor, a new trial was warranted. (Id. at pp. 1027-1028.)

  • Hearing

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANET KRISTINE MYERS VS KQ RANCH RV CAMPING RESORT

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Sharon Kawai, and DENIES the balance of the relief sought by Defendants.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANET KRISTINE MYERS VS KQ RANCH RV CAMPING RESORT

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Sharon Kawai, and DENIES the balance of the relief sought by Defendants.

  • Hearing

  • 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.