Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Law Office Of Superior Court of California
MICHAEL P. RING County of Santa Barbara
AND ASSOCIATES Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
Michael P. Ring, State Bar #95922 7/6/2016 3:16:48 PM
Iris L. M. Ring, State Bar #298179 By: Terri Chavez, Deputy
1234 Santa Barbara Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 564-2333
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT PATSY MOLER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
ANACAPA DIVISION
Patsy Moler, ) CASE NO.: 1417847
) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
Plaintiff, ) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE NOT
v. ) DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY
Chris Hulme, et al.,
Defendants. LIMINE #1
) DATE: 7/13/16
) TIME: 11:30 A.M.
) DEPT. SB1
) (Assigned to Hon. James E. Herman)
And Related Cross-Actions
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 13, 2016, at 11:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard in Department 1 of the above-captioned court, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy
Moler will move this Court for an order, in limine, excluding any evidence not disclosed during
discovery by Defendants/Cross-Complainants in response to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy
Moler's discovery requests, and other irrelevant evidence.
This motion is made on the grounds that Defendants/Cross-Complainants have indicated that
they intend to offer into evidence irrelevant and unduly time consuming matters, which should be
excluded under Evid. Code §352, and that this Court has the power to control proceedings before it
under Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(3).
The motion will be based on this notice, the following Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, the Declaration of Michael P. Ring, the papers on file herein, and on such other and
1
MOTION IN LIMINE RE DISCOVERY
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. RING & ASSOC.
Dated: July 6, 2016 By:
MICHAE . RING
ATTO EYS FOR PATSY i OLER
2
MOTION IN LIMINE RE DISCOVERY
I.
INTRODUCTION
The within matter arises from a construction project at Patsy Moler's home in Santa Barbara,
CA.
During the course of discovery in this litigation, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler
served Defendants/Cross-Complainants with written discovery requests seeking the facts, witnesses,
and documents that support the Defendants/Cross-Complainants' contentions in this case.
Accordingly, by the instant motion in limine, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler now seeks to
ensure that Defendants/Cross-Complainants will not be allowed to "sand-bag" Plaintiff/Cross-
Defendant Patsy Moler by attempting to introduce any evidence which was not previously produced
during discovery.
II.
APPLICABLE LAW
Evidence which is not disclosed during discovery may be excluded by a motion in limine as
the court may impose an evidence sanction on parties who violate discovery orders or otherwise
engage in misuse of the discovery process. See, e.g., CCP §2023.030(c); see also, Thoren v.
Johnston & Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270, 274; Evidence Code §352; Zellerino v. Brown
(1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1117-1118, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 222, 235; The Rutter Group, Civil Trials
& Evidence, at §4:272, et seq.
III.
DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS SHOULD NOT
BE PERMITTED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT
THEY FAILED TO DISCLOSE DURING DISCOVERY
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler will be significantly prejudiced if Defendants/Cross-
Complainants are allowed to introduce evidence other than that which has been produced by
discovery to date. Discovery is closed in this case, and evidence that was in the possession and
control of Defendants/Cross-Complainants, but not produced, should not be introduced at trial.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler will not have had a chance to analyze the evidence nor
depose the individuals involved. The limitation of the introduction of evidence that is extraneous to
that produced in discovery is in keeping with the general judicial policy that litigants should not be
surprised at trial by evidence that should have been produced in discovery. See Greyhound v.
3
MOTION IN LIMINE RE DISCOVERY
Superior Court (1961) 56 Ca1.2d 355, 376 (one of the principal purposes of discovery was to do
away "with the sporting theory of litigation --namely, surprise at the trial").
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler respectfully requests
that the above motion in limine be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. RING & ASSOC.
Dated: July 6, 2016 B
MICHA L P. RIN
ATTO' EYS FOR PAT MOLER
4
MOTION IN LIMINE RE DISCOVERY
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara,
California, 93101.
On July 6, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as PATSY MOLER'S
MOTION IN LIMINE # 1 on the interested parties in this action
XX by placing the original XX a true copy thereof addressed as follows:
JEFFREY M. BENNION BRIAN K. FINDLEY
2869 INDIA ST MULLIGAN, BANHAM & FINDLEY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 2442 Fourth Avenue, Suite 100
jeff@jbennionlaw.com
(via email only per agreement of the parties) San Diego, CA 92101
(via email only per agreement of the parties)
(BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such documents to be
picked up by Federal Express at 1234 Santa Barbara St., Santa Barbara, California, 93101, in a box
designated by Federal Express for overnight delivery, with delivery fees provided for, addressed to
the person on whom it is to be served.
(BY FAX) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent via facsimile to the above-
named persons at the following facsimile number:
XX (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) the electronic address where I served this is
jeff@jbennionlaw.com.
(BY PLACING FOR COLLECTION AND MAILING) I placed the above-mentioned
document(s) in sealed envelope(s) addressed as set forth above, and placed the envelope(s) for
collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm's
practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal
Service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day
with postage thereon fully prepaid at 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 in the
ordinary course of business.
XX (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
Executed on July 6, 2016, at Santa Barbara, California.
MICHAEL P. RING
Type or Print Name
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Law Office Of Superior Court of California MICHAEL P. RING County of Santa Barbara AND ASSOCIATES Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer Michael P. Ring, State Bar #95922 7/6/2016 3:16:48 PM Iris L. M. Ring, State Bar #298179 By: Terri Chavez, Deputy 1234 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 564-2333 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT PATSY MOLER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ANACAPA DIVISION Patsy Moler, ) CASE NO.: 1417847 ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Plaintiff, ) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE NOT v. ) DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY Chris Hulme, et al., Defendants. LIMINE #1 ) DATE: 7/13/16 ) TIME: 11:30 A.M. ) DEPT. SB1 ) (Assigned to Hon. James E. Herman) And Related Cross-Actions TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 13, 2016, at 11:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 1 of the above-captioned court, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler will move this Court for an order, in limine, excluding any evidence not disclosed during discovery by Defendants/Cross-Complainants in response to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler's discovery requests, and other irrelevant evidence. This motion is made on the grounds that Defendants/Cross-Complainants have indicated that they intend to offer into evidence irrelevant and unduly time consuming matters, which should be excluded under Evid. Code §352, and that this Court has the power to control proceedings before it under Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(3). The motion will be based on this notice, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Michael P. Ring, the papers on file herein, and on such other and 1 MOTION IN LIMINE RE DISCOVERY Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. RING & ASSOC. Dated: July 6, 2016 By: MICHAE . RING ATTO EYS FOR PATSY i OLER 2 MOTION IN LIMINE RE DISCOVERY I. INTRODUCTION The within matter arises from a construction project at Patsy Moler's home in Santa Barbara, CA. During the course of discovery in this litigation, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler served Defendants/Cross-Complainants with written discovery requests seeking the facts, witnesses, and documents that support the Defendants/Cross-Complainants' contentions in this case. Accordingly, by the instant motion in limine, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler now seeks to ensure that Defendants/Cross-Complainants will not be allowed to "sand-bag" Plaintiff/Cross- Defendant Patsy Moler by attempting to introduce any evidence which was not previously produced during discovery. II. APPLICABLE LAW Evidence which is not disclosed during discovery may be excluded by a motion in limine as the court may impose an evidence sanction on parties who violate discovery orders or otherwise engage in misuse of the discovery process. See, e.g., CCP §2023.030(c); see also, Thoren v. Johnston & Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270, 274; Evidence Code §352; Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1117-1118, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 222, 235; The Rutter Group, Civil Trials & Evidence, at §4:272, et seq. III. DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THEY FAILED TO DISCLOSE DURING DISCOVERY Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler will be significantly prejudiced if Defendants/Cross- Complainants are allowed to introduce evidence other than that which has been produced by discovery to date. Discovery is closed in this case, and evidence that was in the possession and control of Defendants/Cross-Complainants, but not produced, should not be introduced at trial. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler will not have had a chance to analyze the evidence nor depose the individuals involved. The limitation of the introduction of evidence that is extraneous to that produced in discovery is in keeping with the general judicial policy that litigants should not be surprised at trial by evidence that should have been produced in discovery. See Greyhound v. 3 MOTION IN LIMINE RE DISCOVERY Superior Court (1961) 56 Ca1.2d 355, 376 (one of the principal purposes of discovery was to do away "with the sporting theory of litigation --namely, surprise at the trial"). CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patsy Moler respectfully requests that the above motion in limine be granted. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. RING & ASSOC. Dated: July 6, 2016 B MICHA L P. RIN ATTO' EYS FOR PAT MOLER 4 MOTION IN LIMINE RE DISCOVERY PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, California, 93101. On July 6, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as PATSY MOLER'S MOTION IN LIMINE # 1 on the interested parties in this action XX by placing the original XX a true copy thereof addressed as follows: JEFFREY M. BENNION BRIAN K. FINDLEY 2869 INDIA ST MULLIGAN, BANHAM & FINDLEY SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 2442 Fourth Avenue, Suite 100 jeff@jbennionlaw.com (via email only per agreement of the parties) San Diego, CA 92101 (via email only per agreement of the parties) (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such documents to be picked up by Federal Express at 1234 Santa Barbara St., Santa Barbara, California, 93101, in a box designated by Federal Express for overnight delivery, with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served. (BY FAX) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent via facsimile to the above- named persons at the following facsimile number: XX (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) the electronic address where I served this is jeff@jbennionlaw.com. (BY PLACING FOR COLLECTION AND MAILING) I placed the above-mentioned document(s) in sealed envelope(s) addressed as set forth above, and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 in the ordinary course of business. XX (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 6, 2016, at Santa Barbara, California. MICHAEL P. RING Type or Print Name 1 PROOF OF SERVICE