Party Discovery: NADINE AMARAL ET AL VS. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1    GILBERT L. PURCELL, ESQ., S.B. #113603
                           JAMES P. NEVIN, ESQ., S.B. #220816
                      2    jnevin@braytonlaw.com
                           BRAYTON˜PURCELL LLP                                                                   ELECTRONICALLY
                      3    Attorneys at Law
                           222 Rush Landing Road
                                                                                                                    F  I  L   E  D
                                                                                                                 Superior Court of California,
                      4    P.O. Box 6169                                                                          County of San Francisco
                           Novato, California      94948-6169                                                        01/28/2020
                      5    (415) 898-1555                                                                        Clerk of the Court
                                                                                                                   BY: RONNIE OTERO
                      6    Attorneys for Plaintiffs                                                                           Deputy Clerk


                      7
                      8                                    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                      9                                        COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
                     10
                     11    NADINE AMARAL and JODIE                                )     ASBESTOS
                           COLLINS, JR., as Successors-in-Interest to             )     No.   CGC-19-276768
                     12    and Wrongful Death Heirs of MARJORIE                   )
       NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169




                           COLLINS, Deceased,                                     )     PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
     BRAYTON˜PURCELL LLP

          222 RUSH LANDING ROAD




                     13                                                           )     VARIOUS DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN
            ATTORNEYS AT LAW




                                             Plaintiffs,                          )     LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE
               (415) 898-1555
               P O BOX 6169




                     14                                                           )     PUBLICATION OF HEARSAY
                           v.                                                     )     DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD
                     15                                                           )     COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF
                           DURO DYNE CORPORATION, et al.,                         )     EXPERTS
                     16                                                           )
                                             Defendants.                          )
                     17                                                                 Trial Date: January 21, 2020
                                                                                        Dept.:   220, Hon. Kathleen Kelly
                     18
                     19
                     20
                     21
                     22
                     23
                     24
                     25
                           Based the complex subject matter of the opposition to defendant's motion in limine, and in accordance with CRC
                     26    3.1113(d) ("...no... responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages." "[t]he page limit does not include exhibits,
                           declarations, attachments..."), and in the spirit of CRC 3.1113(e) ("...for permission to file a longer
                     27    memorandum...") plaintiff seeks leave to exceed the San Francisco Court imposed limit of 5 pages and no exhibits.
                           Plaintiff requests permission to file, and for this Court to consider in its entirety, this 32-page opposition, with 1
                     28    exhibit.

                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                      2    I.       INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                             1
                      3    II.      STATE OF THE ART TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT                             TO PLAINTIFFS’
                                    NEGLIGENCE CLAIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                             1
                      4
                           III.     STATE OF THE ART TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS’
                      5             FAILURE-TO- WARN CLAIM.                 ..........................................                       3
                      6    IV.      DR. COHEN’S TESTIMONY IS ALSO RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS’
                                    CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.                     .....................................                    5
                      7
                           V.       BLACK-LETTER LAW DIRECTLY ON POINT REGARDING DR. COHEN. . . . . .                                        7
                      8
                           VI.      BLACK-LETTER LAW REGARDING STATE OF THE ART AND SAFETY
                      9             ORDERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                             9
                     10    VII.     THIS NON-HEARSAY NOTICE LITERATURE CAN BE PUBLISHED
                                    TO THE JURY.         ......................................................                            12
                     11
                           VIII.    DR. COHEN’S TESTIMONY IS IN ACCORD WITH CALIFORNIA
                     12             CAUSATION LAW.             ..................................................                          14
                     13    IX.      DR. COHEN IS A PROPERLY QUALIFIED EXPERT.                            ......................            14
                     14    X.       DR. COHEN POSSESSES MORE THAN ADEQUATE “SKILL,
                                    EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, AND EDUCATION” TO ESTABLISH
                     15             FOUNDATION FOR HIS OPINIONS.                    ....................................                   15
                     16    XI.      DR. COHEN’S RELIANCE DOCUMENTS COMPLY WITH CEC § 801(b). . . . . .                                     18
                     17    XII.     THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT’S HOLDING IN STRUCTURAL POLYMER
                                    GROUP, LTD. v. ZOLVEK CORP., AND ITS RELIANCE ON FEDERAL
                     18             RULE OF EVIDENCE RULE 703 SHOULD SERVE AS A GUIDELINE FOR
                                    THIS COURT.         .......................................................                            19
                     19
                           XIII.    PURSUANT TO CEC § 801(b), DR. RICH COHEN’S RELIANCE ON THE
                     20             VERIFIED SIGNED WORK HISTORY “EXHIBIT A” IS PERMISSIBLE. . . . . . . .                                 19
                     21    XIV.     DR. COHEN’S RELIANCE ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY IS WHOLLY
                                    SUPPORTED BY THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE AND CASE LAW.. . . .                                         20
                     22
                           XV.      PLAINTIFFS’ USE OF HYPOTHETICALS IS PERMISSIBLE AND
                     23             CONFORMS TO REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH UNDER CURRENT
                                    CALIFORNIA CASE LAW.                ............................................                       23
                     24
                           XVI.     UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, DR. COHEN IS NOT REQUIRED TO
                     25             PRODUCE EVERY SOURCE HE HAS EXAMINED OVER THE COURSE
                                    OF HIS ENTIRE CAREER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           24
                     26
                           XVII.    EXPERTS’ TRIAL OPINIONS CANNOT BE CONFINED TO THEIR
                     27             DEPOSITION OPINIONS AS A MATTER OF LAW .                           .......................             24
                     28    ///

                                                                                    i
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.)
                      2    XVIII.   SARGON DOES NOT CHANGE THIS CALIFORNIA COURT’S ROLE
                                    REGARDING EXPERT OPINIONS.                     .....................................                   27
                      3
                           CONCLUSION.          ............................................................                               32
                      4
                      5
                      6
                      7
                      8
                      9
                     10
                     11
                     12
                     13
                     14
                     15
                     16
                     17
                     18
                     19
                     20
                     21
                     22
                     23
                     24
                     25
                     26
                     27
                     28

                                                                                    ii
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1                                            TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
                      2    CASES
                      3    Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           15
                      4    Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987.                     .............        2, 4
                      5    Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 68.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     6, 7
                      6    Bartholomew v. SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 699. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           8
                      7    Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2, 3
                      8    Casey v. Dynalectric Co., 2015 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 4332.                  .......................             10
                      9    Chavers v. Gatke Corp. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 606. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
                     10    Conrad v. Ball Corp. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 439.             ..................................                  10
                     11    Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 555. . . . . . . . . . . .                30
                     12    County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 of Los Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993)
                             17 Cal.App.4th 1268. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           21
                     13
                           Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           10
                     14
                           Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) 509 U.S. 579.                 ................          28. 29
                     15
                           Davis v. Honeywell Internat. Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 477.                .......................            14
                     16
                           Davis v. Sup Ct. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291.          ..........................................                      12
                     17
                           DePalma v. Rodriguez (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 159. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
                     18
                           Douglas v. Ostermeier (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 729. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           15
                     19
                           Easterby v. Clark (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 772. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           25
                     20
                           Fortney v. Tope (1993) 262 Mich 593 at 199; 247 NW 251. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     13
                     21
                           Genrich v. Cal. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 221.            ......................................                    22
                     22
                           Gordon v. D & G Escrow Corp. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 616. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      13
                     23
                           Grimshaw      v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                             6
                     24
                           Hernandez v. Amcord, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 659.                ............................               14
                     25
                           Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Company (1984) 148 Cal.App.3d 374.                   ......................            6, 7
                     26
                           Hymen v. Gordon (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 769. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                       15, 16
                     27
                           Izell v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 962 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
                     28

                                                                                   iii
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1                                       TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d.)
                      2    CASES (cont’d.)
                      3    Jensen v. SP (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 67.            .........................................                     12
                      4    Jones v. John Crane, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7, 8
                      5    Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                       26, 27
                      6    Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519.            ......................................                    20
                      7    Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 670.                  ......................            25
                      8    Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       24, 25, 27
                      9    Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659.              ...................................                   9
                     10    Korsak v. Atlas Hotels, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1516. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           23
                     11    Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1409.                 ......................            9
                     12    Los Altos El Granada Investors v. City of Capitola (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 629.                    .........     17
                     13    Magnolia Square Homeowners Ass’n v. Safeco Ins. Co. (1999) 221 Cal.App.3d 1049. . . . . .                       12
                     14    Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d. 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           15
                     15    Miller v. Silver (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 652.           ......................................                    15
                     16    Naples Restaurant, Inc. v. Coberly Ford (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 881. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        15
                     17    Notrica v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 911.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    21
                     18    Osbourne v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 234. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           15
                     19    Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 164.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
                     20    People v. Alexander (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d. 84.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           15
                     21    People v. Bordelon (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1311.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           12
                     22    People v. Bui (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1187. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           23
                     23    People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                       21, 22
                     24    People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           20
                     25    People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555.          ..........................................                      22
                     26    People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153.          ..........................................                      29
                     27    People v Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           23
                     28    People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 607.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           10

                                                                                    iv
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1                                       TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d.)
                      2    CASES (cont’d.)
                      3    People v. Xue Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                       23, 24
                      4    Rosenberg v. Goldstein (1966) Cal.App.2d 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           15
                      5    Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953 .             ...........................              14
                      6    Sargon v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      27-29
                      7    Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1495.                      27
                      8    Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220.                  ...................           9
                      9    Simon v. Steelman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1002.               ..................................                  12
                     10    Smith v. ACandS, Inc. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 77. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                             2
                     11    Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
                     12    Stahos v. Lemids (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 52.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           12
                     13    Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp., 543 F.3d 987 (2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        19-20
                     14    Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                             6
                     15    Valentine v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 68 Cal.App.4th 1479.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   23
                     16    Weathers v. Kaiser Found. Hosps. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
                     17    Younger v. State Bar (1974) 12 Cal 3d 274.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           12
                     18
                     19    STATUTES
                     20    California Civil Code § 1714(a).         .............................................                       3, 10
                     21    California Civil Code § 3294.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                          5, 6
                     22    California Code of Civil Procedure § 2034(a)(2).            ..................................                  24
                     23    California Code of Civil Procedure § 2034(c)(2).            ..................................                  27
                     24    California Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.210(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           25
                     25    California Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.260.             ...................................                  25
                     26    California Code of Civil Procedure § 2037.3.            .....................................                   27
                     27    California Evidence Code § 210.          ................................................                         6
                     28    California Evidence Code § 351.          ................................................                         6

                                                                                    v
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1                                       TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d.)
                      2    STATUTES (cont’d.)
                      3    California Evidence Code § 352.          .............................................                       7, 13
                      4    California Evidence Code § 402.          ...............................................                        29
                      5    California Evidence Code § 720.          ...............................................                        15
                      6    California Evidence Code § 720(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           14
                      7    California Evidence Code § 720(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           14
                      8    California Evidence Code § 721.          ............................................                       12, 20
                      9    California Evidence Code § 801.          .........................................                     14, 15, 28
                     10    California Evidence Code § 801(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                     15, 18-20, 22, 23, 31
                     11    California Evidence Code § 802.          .........................................                     20, 23, 28
                     12    California Evidence Code § 1331.          ..............................................                        12
                     13    California Evidence Code § 1334.          ..............................................                        12
                     14    California Evidence Code § 1341.          ..............................................                        12
                     15
                     16    MISCELLANEOUS
                     17    BAJI 9.00.7.    ................................................................                                  4
                     18    BAJI 9.20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                             2
                     19    CACI 431. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           14
                     20    CACI 435. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           14
                     21    CACI 1205 .      ................................................................                                 4
                     22    CACI 1222 .      ................................................................                                 2
                     23    California Code of Regulations, tit. 8, § 4101, subd. (l). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           11
                     24    California Code of Regulations, tit. 8, § 4102. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           11
                     25    California Rules of Court, rule 977(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           10
                     26    Encyclopedia Britannica.       ......................................................                             8
                     27    ///
                     28    ///

                                                                                    vi
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1                                       TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d.)
                      2    MISCELLANEOUS (cont’d.)
                      3    Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 702 (28 U.S.C.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           27
                      4    Federal Rule of Evidence, rule 703. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                       18, 19
                      5    Safety Engineering,"The Very Least an Employer Should Know About Dust
                             and Fume Diseases".        ........................................................                             9
                      6
                           Witkin Evidence, § 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           12
                      7
                           Witkin Evidence, § 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           12
                      8
                           Witkin Evidence, § 296, re Medical Texts 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                           12
                      9
                     10
                     11
                     12
                     13
                     14
                     15
                     16
                     17
                     18
                     19
                     20
                     21
                     22
                     23
                     24
                     25
                     26
                     27
                     28

                                                                                   vii
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1    I.       INTRODUCTION
                      2             As stated in his expert designation, the Declaration, setting forth Dr. Richard Cohen,
                      3    M.D., MPH’s qualifications and reliance literature (attached hereto as Exhibit A), the testimony
                      4    in the attached deposition (Exhibit C) of this occupational and preventive medicine specialist
                      5    will focus on three general subject areas:        content and exposure, causation, and historical state
                      6    of the art.  Defendants’ convoluted motions to somehow exclude or limit Dr. Richard Cohen’s
                      7    black-letter law testimony regarding state of the art or exposure must be denied as without
                      8    merit.   To the extent that any defendant also raised a causation argument in its motion, rather
                      9    than repeat it here, plaintiffs refer to and incorporate their opposition to the defendants’ motion
                     10    regarding causation.      Defendants seek to preclude an entire area of substantive knowledge and/
                     11    or exposure that is fundamental to plaintiffs’ causes of action for negligence and product
                     12    liability failure-to-warn, as well as to punitive damages.          Defendants often boldly contend that
                     13    Dr. Cohen can only testify about historical state of the art articles that are directly on point with
                     14    the particular products to which the remaining defendants exposed plaintiff in this case.                 This
                     15    contention misconstrues prevailing California law on state of the art evidence and the facts of
                     16    this case.  Plaintiffs are entitled to present complete state of the art evidence.           Dr. Cohen has
                     17    routinely satisfied the expert testimony requirements and has been routinely permitted to testify.
                     18     Defendants’ motion must therefore be denied.
                     19    II.      STATE OF THE ART TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT                             TO PLAINTIFFS’
                                    NEGLIGENCE CLAIM
                     20
                     21             Dr. Cohen will testify as to when the dangers of asbestos were first recognized, what
                     22    and when information about asbestos-related disease was published in the medical and
                     23    scientific literature, and what knowledge about causation and prevention of asbestos-related
                     24    diseases was available to whom.         The documents and articles that he quotes from will be used
                     25    for this non-hearsay purpose of notice.         Some of his opinions regarding state of the art are set
                     26    forth in his attached Declaration.
                     27             The important test for negligence is whether the danger was known or knowable in
                     28    light of the generally recognized and prevailing best scientific and medical knowledge

                                                                                    1
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1    available at the time of the distribution.       (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation
                      2    (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 991.)        Because Dr. Cohen is testifying specifically as to what was known
                      3    and knowable, his testimony is crucial and highly probative.
                      4             In Smith v. ACandS, Inc. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 77, 97, the court held that the
                      5    defendant “should have foreseen the dangers given the publication of various medical and
                      6    industrial studies of asbestos diseases and promulgation of industrial safety standards and that
                      7    [the defendant] breached its duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of its premises
                      8    by failing . . . to take other reasonable precautions.”         (Emphasis added.)       Under CACI 1222:
                      9             Plaintiff claims that the defendant was negligent by not using reasonable care to
                                    warn [or instruct] about the [product]’s dangerous condition or about facts
                     10             that make the [product] likely to be dangerous.               To establish this claim,
                                    [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: That [name of defendant]
                     11             knew or reasonably should have known that the [product] was dangerous or
                                    was likely to be dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
                     12             [Emphasis added.]
                     13             Under BAJI 9.20:
                     14             One who supplies a product directly or through a third person, for another to use,
                                    which supplier knows or has reason to know is dangerous or is likely to be
                     15             dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, has a duty to use reasonable
                                    care to give warning of the dangerous condition of the product or of facts which
                     16             make it likely to be dangerous to those whom the supplier should expect to use
                                    the product or be endangered by its probable use, if the supplier has reason to
                     17             believe that they will not realize its dangerous condition.          A failure to fulfill that
                                    duty is negligence.     [Emphasis added.]
                     18
                     19             These jury instructions are meaningless if plaintiffs cannot establish what was known or
                     20    knowable.     The only way to do that is through an historical state of the art analysis.
                     21             In seeking to exclude Dr. Cohen’s state of the art testimony, claiming that he is
                     22    somehow not knowledgeable about defendants or their specific sub-industry, defendants are
                     23    asking this Court to make a sub-industry-specific exception to the general duty of care.                 Such an
                     24    exception is not warranted.       As stated in Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764,
                     25    768, “California law establishes the general duty of each person to exercise, in his or her
                     26    ///
                     27    ///
                     28    ///

                                                                                    2
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1    activities, reasonable care for the safety of others.        (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a).).”       The court
                      2    went on to say,
                      3             By making exceptions to Civil Code section 1714’s general duty of ordinary
                                    care only when foreseeability and policy considerations justify a categorical
                      4             no-duty rule, we preserve the crucial distinction between a determination that the
                                    defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of ordinary care, which is for the court to
                      5             make, and a determination that the defendant did not breach the duty of ordinary
                                    care, which in a jury trial is for the jury to make.       [Id. at 772.]
                      6
                      7             To exclude Dr. Cohen’s testimony because it is not expressed in the specific contours
                      8    defendants iterated would create a categorical no-duty rule for this industry.              Defendants owed
                      9    the decedent a general duty of ordinary care, and Dr. Cohen’s testimony goes to the heart of this
                     10    duty.   As the Cabral court expressed with regard to foreseeability,
                     11             We have explained that the court’s task in determining duty “is not to decide
                                    whether a particular plaintiff’s injury was reasonably foreseeable in light of a
                     12             particular defendant’s conduct, but rather to evaluate more generally whether
                                    the category of negligent conduct at issue is sufficiently likely to result in the
                     13             kind of harm experienced that liability may appropriately be imposed … .”
                                    (Citations.)   [Id. at 772.]
                     14
                     15             Dr. Cohen will testify about when the hazards (each of them) of asbestos were well-
                     16    known in the literature, and he will present appropriate examples of medical and scientific
                     17    literature to provide foundation for his testimony.          This testimony is relevant to any defendant
                     18    in any industry that utilized asbestos.       Defendants’ industry is a subset of that group, not
                     19    something categorically different.        Decedent’s particular disease, as well as all other asbestos-
                     20    related diseases, is included within potential risks, potential danger, dangerous condition, likely
                     21    to be dangerous.     Dr. Cohen’s testimony is crucial to the jury’s evaluation of defendants’
                     22    negligent conduct.
                     23    III.     STATE OF THE ART TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE-
                                    TO- WARN CLAIM
                     24
                     25             The same testimony applies to plaintiffs’ product liability claim for failure to warn.               The
                     26    law is clear that there is a “knowability” requirement for a failure to warn strict liability claim:
                     27             [A] reasonably prudent manufacturer might reasonably decide that the risk of
                                    harm was such as not to require a warning as, for example, if the manufacturer's
                     28             own testing showed a result contrary to that of others in the scientific

                                                                                    3
                           K:\Injured\122376\TRIAL\opp mil Rich Cohen state of the art joint.wpd                                           EVS
                           PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PRECLUDE PUBLICATION OF
                           HEARSAY DOCUMENTS OF DR. RICHARD COHEN OR OTHER PLAINTIFF EXPERTS
                      1             community. Such a manufacturer might escape liability under negligence
                                    principles. In contrast, under strict liability principles the manufacturer has no
                      2             such leeway; the manufacturer is liable if it failed to give warning of dangers
                                    that were known to the scientific community at the time it manufactured or
                      3             distributed the product.     [Anderson, supra, 1003.]
                      4             Plaintiffs can only demonstrate the dangers that were known to the scientific community
                      5    by means of expert testimony regarding the state of the art.            This is restated in jury instructions:
                      6    CACI 1205 (emphasis added):
                      7             Plaintiff claims that the [product] lacked sufficient [instructions] [or] [warning
                                    of potential [risks/side effects/allergic reactions]].         To establish this claim,
                      8             plaintiff must prove all of the following: That the [product] had potential
                                    [risks/side effects/allergic reactions] that were [known] [or] [knowable by the
                      9             use of scientific knowledge available] at the time of
                                    [manufacture/distribution/sale].
                     10
                     11             In addition, the CACI Judicial Counsel Advisory Committee notes that “[t]he advisory
                     12    committee believes that this standard is captured by the phrase ‘generally accepted in the
                     13    scientific community.’” (Ad. Comm. notes following CACI 1205.)
                     14    BAJI 9.00.7 (emphas