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

176-200 of 302 results

TESSA SMITH VS MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC

.: BC673951 Hearing Date: December 9, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Motion to exclude plaintiff’s Designated Expert Defendant Magic Mountain LLC (“Defendant”) moves to preclude Plaintiff Tessa Smith (“Plaintiff”) from calling her expert Edward M. Pribonic (“Pribonic”) as a witness at trial. A court must exclude the expert opinion of any expert if the party offering that expert fails to make the expert available for deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

CHRIST VS. GUERRERO, ET AL

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Exclude Supplemental Expert Witness: Plaintiff, Christene Christ moves to exclude Defendants, Oscar and Patricia Guerrero’s supplemental expert, Dr. Michael Levin from testifying at trial pursuant to CCP § 2034.280(a). Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,255. In their initial disclosure of expert witnesses, Defendants identified Mark A. Schrumpf, M.D. as a retained expert. The substance of his testimony was described in defense counsel’s declaration.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2018

THOMAS TREZONA VS. DOUGLAS W HILLIS

As a consequence defendant seeks a continuance of the trial date so that his motion to exclude Dr. Orisek can be heard in timely fashion prior to trial. Defendant argues that the status of this retained expert will have a material effect on the manner in which he will prepare for trial. As a consequence, defendant argues that this matter must be resolved in timely fashion. Plaintiff opposes any continuance, arguing that defendant has not asserted any recognized basis for a continuance.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

FRANKLIN V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

(Ford filed a third motion to exclude evidence but has since filed a Notice of Withdrawal of that motion. Thus, the motion to exclude was dropped.) As to the Motion to Seal, Plaintiff opposes on the grounds the motion is untimely under Rule of Court 2.551(b)(3) and the Court lacks discretion to consider an untimely motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Jennifer V

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

THOMAS TREZONA VS. DOUGLAS W HILLIS

As a consequence defendant seeks a continuance of the trial date so that his motion to exclude Dr. Orisek can be heard in timely fashion prior to trial. Defendant argues that the status of this retained expert will have a material effect on the manner in which he will prepare for trial. As a consequence, defendant argues that this matter must be resolved in timely fashion. Plaintiff opposes any continuance, arguing that defendant has not asserted any recognized basis for a continuance.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CHRIST VS. GUERRERO, ET AL

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Exclude Supplemental Expert Witness: Plaintiff, Christene Christ moves to exclude Defendants, Oscar and Patricia Guerrero’s supplemental expert, Dr. Michael Levin from testifying at trial pursuant to CCP § 2034.280(a). Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,255. In their initial disclosure of expert witnesses, Defendants identified Mark A. Schrumpf, M.D. as a retained expert. The substance of his testimony was described in defense counsel’s declaration.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2018

JOHN H.A. DOE VS. LUIS ARMANDO VILLA GONZALEZ ET AL

S Motion To Exclude Plaintiff's Testimony As Evidentiary Sanction For Failure To Appear At Noticed Deposition Pro Tem Judge Nils Rosenquest, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2013

  • Judge

    Nils Rosenquest

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

JOHN H.A. DOE VS. LUIS ARMANDO VILLA GONZALEZ ET AL

Mtn To Exclude Pltf'S Testimony Set for hearing on Thursday, October 31, 2013, Line 4: Defendant LUIS GONZALEZ'S Motion To Exclude Plaintiff's Testimony Pro Tem Judge Nils Rosenquest, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2013

  • Judge

    Nils Rosenquest

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

BOY VS ZIMMER INC

(3) Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Damage Experts is DENIED. "[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or 3) speculative." (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 771–772.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

BOY VS ZIMMER INC

(3) Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Damage Experts is DENIED. "[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or 3) speculative." (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 771–772.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

BOY VS ZIMMER INC

(3) Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Damage Experts is DENIED. "[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or 3) speculative." (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 771–772.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

BOY VS ZIMMER INC

(3) Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Damage Experts is DENIED. "[U]nder Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the expert relies, or 3) speculative." (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 771–772.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

DOW VS. HUTCHENS

Next, the motion to exclude evidence and then remand this matter back to the arbitrator for a decision on a “corrected administrative record” is DENIED because this would interfere with the pending binding, contractual arbitration proceeding. See, Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1802.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2016

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

LA COUNTY METRO TRANS AUTHORITY VS NEW PACIFIC CANON LLC

Defendant does not oppose a bifurcated trial on the issue, but does oppose this motion to exclude the claim. Given the fact intensive nature of the dispute and the law regarding condemnation trials, the Court finds that bifurcation would be appropriate. The issues central to the Klopping claim of unreasonable delay and oppressive conduct are disputed questions of fact that are more appropriately dealt with at such a court trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

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

HELENA HUOH VS. ARIEL BENTOLILA ET AL

s Motion to Compel Ariel Bentolila and Abnet Tekie's Further Responses and Production of Documents In Response to Request for Production Of Documents, Set One, Nos. 3, 28, and 34; and Further Responses and Production of Documents In Response To Request For Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 36, 38, and 48; and for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to bringing a motion to exclude any evidence of their damages of $215,000.00 and future lost income of at least 10% of their revenue that might be

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2016

  • Judge

    Peter VanZandt

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

FRANCIS SEARS VS. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION

Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony from Dr. Strauchan The motion is denied. The request for sanctions is denied. Defendant seeks to exclude Dr. Strauchen's testimony because Dr. Strauchen failed to answer questions at deposition regarding the total income he earned from employment as a medical expert. Effectively, defendant seeks exclusion and monetary compensation as a discovery sanction.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

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

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

HORTON VS TRIDENT SOCIETY INC

The Motion to exclude Robbins from testifying is DENIED; however, Robbins will not be permitted to express legal opinions. The Court will HEAR on the nature and scope of Robbins' permissible opinions. No. 2 (ROA # 323): To exclude evidence of Plaintiff's alleged business expenses not timely produced or disclosed during discovery – DENY.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LUIS RUANO ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

As Defendant correctly notes in opposition, however, the trial court in Fairfax denied the plaintiff’s motion to exclude without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to bring a motion in limine seeking the same relief. The plaintiff ultimately did so, and the court of appeals granted the relief. The court of appeals was not concerned with the mechanism for the relief sought, but the case certainly does not support Plaintiff’s position that relief is proper other than via a motion in limine to exclude.

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2019

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

  « 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.