arrow left
arrow right
  • HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                LEWIS

BRISBO'S

i
22)

defendant American Honda Metor-Co-Ine- AHM") submits he following Declaration in support

i
[
;
:
|
|
I

RB & SMITH LLP ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JUL 01 2014

|
Clerk of the Court |
BY: ROMY RISK ‘

|
|
|
|
/
|
|

Deputy Cle

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

HAROLD Ki and NANCY KARIDIS- | C 3276217
KOEPKE, |
DECLARATION OF DAVID J, |
Plaintiffs, KESTENBAUM EN SUPPORT OF |
{ DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA |
Vs. MOTOR CO,, INC'S SPECIFIC

MOTIONS FN LEMINE
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, etal.
Fudge: Hon, Richard B. Ulmer

Defendants. | Depts 624

Action Filed: December 3, 2013
Trial Date: June 24, 2014

Pursuant to Judge Teri Jackson’s May 7, 2014 Asbestos Trial Management Order,

of its request lor additional motions in limine. By way of this Declaration, ALM requests this

Court to permit AHM to file five motions in limine as set out below:

DECLARATION OF DAVID J. KESTENBAUM

1, David J. Kestenbaum, declare as follows:

California and { am an associate with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, attorneys of record

BAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AME
“S$ SPHCIPIC MOTIONS IN LIMINE.

ARATION GF DAVID | RES
c

i. Tam an attorney duly admitted to practice in all of the courts of the State of |
IN
|LEWIS
BRISBOIS

a Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,, INC. herein, The facts set forth herein are of

my own personal knowled;

mid if sworn T could and would competently testify

|

3 By way of this Declaration, AHM requests permission from thig Court to file and

2
3,
4

have heard five motions in Hesine that are specific to AHM pursuant to Judge Peri Jackson's Trial

Management Order dated May 7, 2014 which applies to the instant matter,

3. ATIM is reserving its Motion in Limine No. | at the present lime and is nat

| requesting leave to have it heard.

4. ALM requests that this Court permit AHM to file and have heard its Motion. in

Materials And Other Materials As Referenced By Plaintiffs’ Expert David S. Egilman. AHM
requests that this motion be heard as the testimony and opinions AHM seeks to have excluded by
way of this motion are irrelevant and prejudicial and Dr. Egilman should not be allowed to discuss

his unfounded belief that AHM tore up documents related to Ford and should not be allowed to

present such prejudicial actions in front of the jury.

8. AHM requests that this Court permit AHM to file and have heard its Motion in

16

9 Limine No. 2 To Exclude Use Of, Reference To And Opinions About Torn Up Ford Motor Co,
i
i
Limine No. 3 To Exelude Reference To Pereipient Witness Lawrence Krasnow’s Employment At

17 i Menlo Honda. ANM secks te have ony reference to, evidence of, or testimony about Mr.

18. | Krasnow’s work at Menlo Honda be excluded at trial because it oceurred after he worked for Mr.

19 || Koepke, he was not offered to speak on behalf of AHIM or Menlo Honda, and his testimony about |
20} what occurred, or did not oceur, at the Menlo Honda location where he worked has no bearing on
21 Liability j in this case, is irrelevant, and pre} judicial. |

6, AHM requests that this Court permit AHM to { fite and have heard. its Motion in }

Limite No. 4 To Exclude Reference To Witiess Donald Sipple’s Employment At Honda And i

Nw
8

24 |) Acura Dealerships. AHM seeks to have any reference to. evidence of, or testimony about Mr.
25 || Sipple’s work at various Honda and Acura dealerships be excluded at trial. because this witness
26 || testified that he did not know Mr. Koepke and there has been no evidence that Mr. Koepke visited

27 || or purchased products from any of the Honda or Acura dealerships where Mr. Sipple worked. In

8 addigion.Myr. Sipple was not offered to speak on behalf of AHM, and his testimony about what

“DECLARATION OF DAVID 1 KESTENBA’ IN SUPPORT OF IDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR }
CO. INCS SPECIFIC MOTIONS IN LIMINE {
|is case, is itrelevant, and prejudicial.

7. AHM requests that dus Court permit ANM to file and have heard its Motion in

n

Liming No. 3 To Exclude The December 10, 2007 Report of Millette’s Analysis Of Honda Brakes
For Asbestos And Any Reference To Or Reliance On This Report By Plaintiffs’ Experts At Trial,

1 ATM submits this motion on the grounds that though the report was noted within the generic

materials of plaintiffs’ expert Dr. William Longa, Dr. Longo did not testify that he

s actually relied apon it in this case. Purther, as to the report itself, it is inadmissible hearsay and
9) must be excluded from evidence on that basis. Finally, the report and any reliance on it must be
10 | excluded because Dr. Longo has no personal knowledge of this; he did not participate in this study

11 || and there is no evidence showing that the product tested is in any way relevant to the present case.

12 i &. ATM requests that this Court permit AHM to file and have heard its Motion in

B 2 Limine No. 6 To Exelude Evidence Of Conduct, Testing, Research (And Funding of Same), And

if 4 Warnitigs of Non-Parties, AHM submits this motion because any such evidence lacks any

15} probative value as the defendants who performed such conduct, commissioned such testing (or
funded the testing), and issued warnings regarding asbestos are no longer in the case, and,

17 | therefore, the evidence has no tendency to prove or to disprove any fact at issue

18 i | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

19 || foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 24, 2014, at San

20 | Francisco, California.
a]
a seaeenstiestntninmmimimammmannen

221)

1102-6489.
RATION OF DAVID

N'HONDA }

FORLEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
(SMITH LP

STORRS A LAS

~- 6 YN DA Hh RB BY NR me

BN RB RNR DR RD meet
eo TA A hk BN = S © OH ID A KH BF BN S& SF

CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE

Harold Koepke v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-13-276217

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My
business address is 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2872.

On July 1, 2014, I served the following document(s): DECLARATION OF DAVID J.
KESTENBAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC.’S SPECIFIC MOTIONS IN LIMINE

I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax
numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable):

Plaintiffs’ Counsel:
Via File & Servexpress
Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood
Jack London Market

55 Harrison Street, Suite 400

Oakland, CA 94607

All Defense Counsel Via File & Servexpress

The documents were served by the following means:

x (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA FILE & SERVEXPRESS) Based on a court order, I
caused the above-entitled document(s) to be served through File & ServeXpress at
https://secure. fileandservexpress.com addressed to all parties appearing on the electronic
service list for the above-entitled case. The service transmission was reported as complete
and a copy of the File & ServeXpress Filing Receipt Page/Confirmation will be filed,
deposited, or maintained with the original document(s) in this office.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on July 1, 2014, at San Francisco;California.

4825-1102-6459.1

4
PROOF OF SERVICE