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

151-175 of 297 results

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

QER LEE VS. COBBS BUS SERVICE LLC

Therefore the motion to exclude is granted as to evidence of Greyhound's 2009 busses. This minute order, if adopted at the hearing, is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

QER LEE VS. COBBS BUS SERVICE LLC

Therefore the motion to exclude is granted as to evidence of Greyhound's 2009 busses. This minute order, if adopted at the hearing, is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

QER LEE VS. COBBS BUS SERVICE LLC

Therefore the motion to exclude is granted as to evidence of Greyhound's 2009 busses. This minute order, if adopted at the hearing, is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DRAIN RITE PLUMBING INC ET AL VS CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE

Prior to the evidence, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion to exclude two of Drain Rite’s witnesses, including Drain Rite employee Brandon Young (“Young”). AR 45-46, 48. The ALJ did so based on the untimely efforts of Drain Rite’s counsel in filing his witness and exhibit lists. AR 38, 1463. The attorney had filed an amended witness list on July 18, 2016, one week prior to trial, and failed to respond to the Board’s motion in limine. Id.

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2018

EBERHARD V. SULLIVAN

Motion to Disqualify Expert Alan Wallace (Pending) Plaintiff Karin Eberhard’s motion to exclude defense expert Alan Wallace is DENIED. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Koenig, has demonstrated that (1) it reasonably expected confidentiality in his conversation with Mr. Wallace and (2) confidential information materially relevant to this litigation was in fact disclosed. (Koenig Decl. at ¶¶ 4, and 6 - 9; see Western Digital Corp. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1481-1482; Shadow Traffic Network v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2017

EBERHARD V. SULLIVAN

Motion to Disqualify Expert Alan Wallace Plaintiff Karin Eberhard’s motion to exclude defense expert Alan Wallace is DENIED. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Koenig, has demonstrated that (1) it reasonably expected confidentiality in his conversation with Mr. Wallace and (2) confidential information materially relevant to this litigation was in fact disclosed. (Koenig Decl. at ¶¶ 4, and 6 - 9; see Western Digital Corp. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1481-1482; Shadow Traffic Network v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2017

ZHAOSHENG CHEN VS BAM BROKERAGE, INC.

“A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless: (a) there appears of record an objection to or a motion to exclude or strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion; and (b) The court which passes upon the effect of the error or errors is of the opinion that the admitted evidence should have been excluded on the ground stated

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

Defendant Adam Shacknai's motion to exclude expert testimony, is granted in part. The requests to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cyril Wecht and to preclude Lisa DiMeo from offering testimony based on information obtained after her deposition are granted. In all other respects the motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

Defendant Adam Shacknai's motion to exclude expert testimony, is granted in part. The requests to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cyril Wecht and to preclude Lisa DiMeo from offering testimony based on information obtained after her deposition are granted. In all other respects the motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

Defendant Adam Shacknai's motion to exclude expert testimony, is granted in part. The requests to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cyril Wecht and to preclude Lisa DiMeo from offering testimony based on information obtained after her deposition are granted. In all other respects the motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANGEL V. SOLA

Nature of Proceedings: 2 Motions to Compel and Motion to Exclude The court continues the three motions scheduled for November 28, 2017 (two motions to compel independent medical examinations and a motion to exclude noneconomic damages) to December 12, 2017, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 2, when a motion to compel deposition answers is scheduled to be heard. The court is aware that trial is scheduled for January 16, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2017

Ford v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing 14CV0119

Deutsche Bank (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 409) The motion to exclude emotional distress damages is denied. Motion no. 6 to exclude evidence, documents, and witnesses not disclosed in discovery is denied. The party seeking to exclude specific evidence will have the burden of showing that it was not produced and specially demanded in discovery. Motion no. 7 to bifurcate the punitive damages claim is granted.

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2017

RUNNING VS NOBEL

Defendant contends (1) there was no evidence that defendant made any false promises, (2) the verdict form was rushed, and (3) the Court erred in denying defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert CPA, Jeff Porter. A motion for new trial based on an irregularity in the proceedings must be supported by affidavits or declarations. Code Civ. Proc., § 658. Defendant did not file any supporting declarations. Thus, defendant has not demonstrated an irregularity in the proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SHARMALEE GOONEWARDENE VS. ALTOUR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Administrative Duties: Denied. Not unduly prejudicial. Provides context and explanation of the custom and habit between Plaintiff and her employer. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Irrelevant and Unduly Prejudicial Evidence: The NSF check was written in November, 2011. While it goes to her credibility, almost 6 years have gone by. The court weighs probative and prejudicial facts and exercises its discretion and excludes evidence of the bad check.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2017

GLORIA MARTINEZ VS JUAN CARLOS CARBAJAL CEBALLOS

.: BC602678 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT SABURO AMERICANA dba MIFUNE’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE, STRIKE, AND/OR SUPRESS THE FIRST DEPOSITION OF NONPARTY WITNESS MARISELA RAMIREZ HERNANDEZ Dept. 98 1:30 p.m. September 8, 2017 On December 1, 2015, Plaintiff Gloria Martinez filed this action against Defendants Saburo America dba Mifune (“Mifune”) and its employee, Juan Carlos Carbajal Ceballos (“Ceballos”), for alleged injuries arising out of an August 19, 2017 vehicle collision.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SECOND ROUND VS GIAMBONA

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE FILED BY MICHAEL GIAMBONA * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion is unopposed and the motion to exclude evidence is, therefore granted. However the request for monetary sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2017

BARRETT, JOHN VS HODGE, HAIRM

Respondent’s motion to exclude testimony was granted. (Petitioner’s Exh. 7, p. 7.) Hernandez’s testimony, if admitted, would reflect the following: LADWP produced three documents demonstrating the standard traffic light sequences at the relevant intersection as of the day in question. Hernandez did not create these particular documents, but his job with LADWP required that he create other documents of the same nature.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SMITH, GEORGIA VS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

Respondent’s motion to exclude testimony was granted. (Petitioner’s Exh. 7, p. 7.) Hernandez’s testimony, if admitted, would reflect the following: LADWP produced three documents demonstrating the standard traffic light sequences at the relevant intersection as of the day in question. Hernandez did not create these particular documents, but his job with LADWP required that he create other documents of the same nature.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHN WILSON VS. DIGNITY HEALTH INC

A motion to exclude evidence at trial is a trial issue and is most appropriately resolved by the trial judge in connection with the trial. Therefore, the court, on its own motion, continues the hearing of this motion to the time, date and place for trial: September 5, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 40. No notice of intent to appear is required.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2017

DAVID YANG ET AL VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

[Tentative] Order RE: motion to exclude plaintiff’s supplemental expert jon landerville MOVING PARTY: Defendants State of California and Cesar Melendez RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff David Yang Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Supplemental Expert Jon Landerville The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

RICCI CORNELL VS. SUNG KWONG HUEY ET AL

Notice Of Defendant S Motion To Exclude Plaintiff S Disclosed Loss Of Use Expert, Brian Grey Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Monday, July 17, 2017, line 1. DEFENDANT AGNES HUEY'S Motion To Exclude Plaintiff's Disclosed Loss Of Use Expert, Brian Grey. DENIED. Moving party fails to cite any authority in support of the motion. =(501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2017

FERNANDO BUENO ET AL VS. HAWK LING LOU ET AL

MOTION / Notice Of Motion To Exclude Defendants Hawk Ling Lou, Individually, Hawk Ling Lou And Ketty Fong Lou, As Trustees Of The Hawk Ling Lou And Ketty Fong Lou Revocable Trust Dated January 27, 1998, Hawk Ling Lou Dba Mission Market Management, Erroneously Sued As Ken Yee, Dba Mission Market Management'S Supplemental Expert Witnesses Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 13, 2017 line 2.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2017

FERNANDO BUENO ET AL VS. HAWK LING LOU ET AL

Amended Notice Of Plaintiffs Motion To Exclude Defendant J And R Land Companys Late Disclosed Experts And Supplemental Expert Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 10, 2017 line 7. PLAINTIFFs FERNANDO BUENO, AMINTA CALDERON, and ABDON CALDERON's Amended Notice Of Plaintiffs Motion To Exclude Defendant J And R Land Companys Late Disclosed Experts And Supplemental Expert Hearing Required. Parties to appear at 8:00 a.m. and engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2017

BARTOLO FLORES VS ANDERSON HAY & GRAIN CO INC ET AL

Motion to Exclude Experts at Trial On 2/22/17, Plaintiff served his expert designation. Defendant made numerous efforts to depose Plaintiff’s experts, which efforts are detailed in the moving papers. Plaintiff refused to provide his experts on the dates designated, and failed to provide alternative dates. Defendant has been continuing to attempt to take Plaintiff’s experts’ depositions, but no dates have been provided and no experts have been produced.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2017

  « 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.