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

1-25 of 297 results

NOEL LYNN ROBERTS VS. DOWNTOWN PLAZA LLC

Motion to exclude reference to tax information The motion is granted. It is unopposed. 2. Motion to exclude reference to potentially prejudicial issues during voir dire The motion is granted. It is unopposed. 3. Motion to exclude reference to settlement discussions The motion is unnecessary. It has already been deemed granted by the court's standing order issued in this case. (See also Local Rule 13.01(2)) 4.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JIM MACKLIN VS. AMERICRETE INC

Motion to exclude speculative testimony of non-experts The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 4. Motion to exclude evidence not previously disclosed in discovery The motion is granted, at least conceptually. It is not opposed. The application of the ruling will be discussed at the hearing. 5. Motion to exclude reference to settlements The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 6. Motion to exclude evidence that plaintiff did not hold a proper license The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MELISSA GOMEZ VS. HUGH G HOLT

New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 670) Motion to Exclude Felony Convictions The motion is granted. It is not opposed. Motion to Exclude Experiment and Testing The motion is denied without prejudice. The Court will conduct a 402 hearing to determine whether the conditions in the testing were sufficiently similar to the conditions in plaintiff's apartment to be relevant. Defendants Motions in Limine 1.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANK SWANSON VS PHONEPHASOUK PHONGSAIPHONH

Motion to exclude witnesses 3. Motion to exclude settlement discussion The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 4. Motion to exclude insurance The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 5. Motion to exclude "golden rule" The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 6. Motion to exclude wealth or poverty The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 7. Motion to exclude traffic report The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 8.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MICHAEL LUJAN VS. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED

Motion to exclude simulation The Court defers its ruling at this time. This is substantially similar to motion number 3. A hearing outside the presence of the jury is required. 5. Motion to exclude responses of American Motors to standard interrogatories DENIED without prejudice. Counsel are directed that there shall be no mention of these before the jury without prior leave of court. 6. Motion to exclude defendant's discovery responses from other actions DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2014

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RICHARD E PARKEN ET AL VS KATHYLYNE A SMART-VASQUEZ

Motion to exclude comment on how plaintiffs will spend amount of any judgment The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 13. Motion to exclude reference to taxes The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 14. Motion to exclude reference to imminent peril doctrine The motion is denied without prejudice. This motion addresses whether the Court should instruct the jury on "imminent peril." The motion is premature.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ADCO CONSTRUCTION DEFECT

s Motion to Exclude Cary P. Mack as an Expert or to Augment Cell Crete?s Expert Witness List The Motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2005

THE TDS GROUP INC VS. THE IRA CENTER

Motion to Exclude Statements re Wicker's Good Character or Status as a Retired Air Force Colonel The motion is denied pursuant to Kelly v. New West (supra). 14. Motion to Exclude Allegations that TDS lost school districts due to change in fee model The motion is denied pursuant to Kelly v. New West (supra). Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate. Defendants seek to divide the trial into three phases. One would be a court trial on four legal issues.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2014

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CITY OF SACRAMENTO VS BRETT PATCHING ET AL

Motion to exclude witnesses The motion is granted. It is not opposed. Defendants' Motions in Limine 1. Motion to exclude reference to settlements The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 2 Motion to exclude reference to insurance coverage The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 3. Motion to exclude witnesses The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 4. Motion to exclude Chief Bassett from the courtroom when he is not testifying The motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

CECIL STEPHENS VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL

The alternative motion to exclude Dr. Hammar, Dr. Salyer and Dr. Horn is denied. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2011

DONALD W KINN ET AL VS. CAHILL & KAVANAUGH, INC., DBA MALCOLM PLUMBING ET AL

Motion To Exclude Expert Witness Matter on calendar for Tuesday, January 10, 2017, Line 1, Motion To Exclude Expert Witness. Plaintiffs Donald and Dorothy Kinn's motion to exclude expert testimony of Glen Stevick is denied. Per CCP 2034.280, defendant Cahill & Kavanaugh, Inc. properly designated Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2017

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.