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

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude

176-200 of 302 results

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

YOUSSEF RAPHAEL VS GEORGE E. RIZK

The motion to exclude the testimony of Morse is DENIED on the condition that Plaintiff produce the database, subject to a protective order for attorney’s eyes only. Otherwise, it will be granted.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

30-2013-00649338-CU-JR-CXC

Note above in motion No. 1 and No. 2 that separate motion to exclude the Dempsey declaration is denied without prejudice to later attack on expert testimony, herein at the trial on the merits. Moving Party shall give Notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2017

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

BEHIND THE CHAIR COM INC VS DEAN CHRISTAL ET AL

Hammock Judge of the Superior Court *********************************************************************************************** (1) MOTION TO EXCLUDE “EX POST” DATA TO MEASURE DAMAGES; (2) MOTION TO PRECLUDE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Defendants Dean Christal and LIQWD, Inc. and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Olaplex LLC RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) Plaintiff Behindthechair.com.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2017

STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. ACREW MANAGEMENT LLC.

Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony from James Kroetch re: valuation Tentative Ruling: To grant pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1263.230, subd. (a). See also Redevelopment Agnecy v. Maxwell (1963) 193 Cal.App.2nd 414, 419. Explanation: Initially, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration, as the Court has previously denied Plaintiff’s motion in limine that Mr. Kroetch be prohibited from testifying regarding opinions not stated in his deposition.

  • Hearing

    May 12, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

MENDOZA V. DINH

The Motion to Exclude Evidence brought by Defendant (Juggernaut Legal, APC) is DENIED, as Defendant failed to demonstrate the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 454 apply to this action. In this instance, Defendant merely references the allegation in the First Amended Complaint that “Plaintiff has a right to payment from Sunny Days and Dinh for the sum of at least Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($250,000.00).” (See ¶39 of FAC).

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2017

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

BEHIND THE CHAIR COM INC VS DEAN CHRISTAL ET AL

Motion To Exclude “Ex Post” Data To Measure Damages Regarding Plaintiff’s claim for 3% of the full value of Olaplex, Defendants move for an order excluding “ex post” data (data occurring after the date of breach) to measure damages, allowing only “ex ante” data (data known to the parties as of the date of the breach). The Court notes the distinction between holding a 3% interest in Olaplex and holding a right to 3% of net profits.

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2017

JCCP4154 COORDINATION PROCEEDING CIPRO CASES I & II [E-FILE]

The questions involved in this case were both novel and difficult as demonstrated by the decision of the California Supreme Court in In re Cipro Cases I & II (2015) 61 Cal.4th 116 and by the motion practice in this case, including the multiple motions for summary judgment, Barr's motion for decertification, Defendants' motion to exclude testimony from Plaintiffs' expert C. Scott Hemphill and the two weeks of motions in limine/Evidence Code § 402 hearings presided over by this court.

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2017

MACKEDSY VS. THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA

On January 23, 2017, the Court heard the City's motion to exclude this witness' testimony at trial. The Court ruled: "County Counsel to make the witness available for deposition this evening otherwise she will not be allowed to testify at the time of trial." Accordingly, the airfare was not incurred for the taking of the deposition. The airfare was incurred for the witness' testimony at trial.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SCOTT DENSON VS U-HAUL OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

The Court notes that, though Plaintiff has brought this as a motion to strike, this motion is essentially a motion to exclude the expert opinions of Defendants’ newly-designated experts at trial. Under the Personal Injury Court system, this case will be tried by a different court. That court will rule on trial issues such as motions in limine and motions to bifurcate. The Court finds that the subject of the instant motion will be best addressed by the trial court.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2017

GHEZAVAT VS TOWN OF DANVILLE

Plaintiffs also argue that public policy considerations warrant denying the motion to exclude because the Town had a non-delegable duty to maintain the shrubs and make them safe. That might be so, but Sycamore’s motion for summary judgment was not decided on the issue of duty. It was decided on the issue of causation. The Court did not rule on any duty issue in connection with Sycamore’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court is not here ruling on any duty issue.

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2017

KELLY HANKER VS SKYE LYNN RAY ET AL

.: BC479543 [TENATATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN ITS ENTIRETY; DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff, Kelly Hanker filed this action against Defendants, Skye Lynn Ray and Rodney R. Pyle for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff filed her complaint on 2/24/12, based on an accident that occurred on 2/27/10.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

IRWINDALE PARTNERS L.P. VS USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

The motion to exclude is granted with regard to mentioning the litigation between USA Waste and the owner of the Mnoian Pit. 3. Exclude Evidence Related to Lobbying Efforts: The court finds that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of confusion of the issues, the undue consumption of time, confusion of the issues and the potential for undue prejudice. (Evid. Code § 352.) The motion is granted. 4.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2017

PIFER VS. PIFER PROPERTIES INC

Plaintiffs Steven Pifer and Kevin Pifer's Motion to Exclude John A. Pifer's Testimony from Trial or, in the Alternative, for an Order Requiring PPI to Cause Him to Submit to a Neuropsychological Examination and for Related Relief is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs are seeking to have John Pifer's testimony excluded from trial pursuant to Evidence Code sections 701 and 352.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PIFER VS. PIFER PROPERTIES INC

Plaintiffs Steven Pifer and Kevin Pifer's Motion to Exclude John A. Pifer's Testimony from Trial or, in the Alternative, for an Order Requiring PPI to Cause Him to Submit to a Neuropsychological Examination and for Related Relief is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs are seeking to have John Pifer's testimony excluded from trial pursuant to Evidence Code sections 701 and 352.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PIFER VS. PIFER PROPERTIES INC

Plaintiffs Steven Pifer and Kevin Pifer's Motion to Exclude John A. Pifer's Testimony from Trial or, in the Alternative, for an Order Requiring PPI to Cause Him to Submit to a Neuropsychological Examination and for Related Relief is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs are seeking to have John Pifer's testimony excluded from trial pursuant to Evidence Code sections 701 and 352.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

    Feb 03, 2017

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA [IMAGED

The City of San Diego's Motion to Exclude Speculative Severance Damages is DENIED. Notwithstanding the summary procedure in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1260.040, the issue of severance damages is to be tried. The primary issue for trial here will be severance damages – i.e. those damages that consist generally of the diminution in the fair market value of the remainder property caused by the project. Ordinarily, the issue of severance damages is determined by a jury and not summarily by the Court. See Metro.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  « 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.