On September 29, 2006 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Rodamer, James, Rodamer, Nancy, and All Asbestos Defendants, Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust, Armstrong International, Inc., Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., A.W. Chesterton Company, Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Cleaver Brooks, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Crane Co., Crane Co. Individually And As Sii To Chapman Valve, Crown, Cork & Seal, Individually And As, Csr, Ltd., Aka Colonial Sugar Refinery, Does 1-300, Inclusive, Domco Products Texas, L.P, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., Durabla Manufacturing Company, Elliott Company,, Fairbanks Morse Pump, Fairbanks Morse Pump Corp., Familian Corporation, Familian Corporation Dba Familian Pipe &, Foster Wheeler Llc, Foster Wheeler, Llc, Gardner Denver, Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc Individually And, General Electric Company, Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grinnell Corporation, Henry Vogt Machine Co., Hill Brothers Chemical Company, Imo Industries Inc.,, Imo Industries, Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, International Paper Company, Itt Corporation,, Itt Industries, Individually And As Sii To, J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Kentile Floors, Inc., Leslie Controls, Inc., Lydall, Inc., Lydall, Inc.,, Metex Mfg. Corporation, Owens-Illinois, Inc., Parker Hannifin Corp., Individually And As Sii To, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Plant Insulation Company, Quintec Industries, Inc., Ray L. Hellwig Plumbing, R. F. Macdonald, R.F. Macdonald Co., Soco West, Inc., Sterling Fluid Systems, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Uniroyal, Inc., Warren Pumps, Llc, Westburne Supply Inc., Yarway Corporation, for ASBESTOS in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
LAW OFFICES OF PRINDLE, DECKER & AMARO LLP KBP/MIL1I Does Afler Last Expostere redamer Ww PSP WwW NN PRINDLE, DECKER & AMARO, LLP WILLIAM M. HAKE (Bar No. 119956) JENNIFER M. WAYS (Bar No. 152838) JAMES Y¥. JOYCE (Bar No. 111632) 369 Pine Street, Suite 800 San Francisco CA 94104 Tel. No.: (415) 788-8354 Fax No.: (415) 788-3625 Attorneys for Defendants A.W, CHESTERTON COMPANY ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco MAY 16 2007 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk BY: LUCIA RAMOS Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION EVERETT HOGGE, et al., Piaintiff{s), Vv. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Nee? nee eee Soap” Smee” Stee” mee Nemes eee” CASE NO. 452846 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DOCUMENTS DATED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S LAST ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO THEIR PRODUCTS/ CONDUCT Complaint Filed September 29, 2006 Tria! Date April 30, 2007 Dept. 306 Hon. Nancy L. Davis TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Defendant, A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY (hereinafter collectively as "Defendant") prior to trial and selection of a jury, move this court in fimine for an order excluding all documents dated after Plaintiff, JAMES RODAMER’s last alleged exposure to their productsconduct. This motion is based on the grounds that all such evidence is irrelevant because these documents cannot shed any light on the knowledge or conduct of Defendants. All such evidence would be confusing and highly prejudicial because the jury will not be able to separate posl-exposure knowledge from pre-exposure knowledge and conduct of said Defendants. In addition, all such evidence would take ht RR A DEFENDANTS’ MGFION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DOCUMENTS DATED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S LAST ALLEGED EXPOSURE 10 THEIR PRODUCTS/CONDUCTLAW orricns oF PRINDLE, DECKER & AMARO LLP up a substantial amount of time both to introduce and rebut. Therefore the evidence should be excluded, pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 210, 350 and 352. Defendants anticipate that Plaintiffs will attempt to offer into evidence post-exposure documents in an attempt to show that Defendants knew or should have known of the potential health hazards of asbestos-containing products. However, any information generated or received by Defendants afier Plaintiff's last alleged exposure to Defendants’ products/conduet is irrelevant to any of the matters at issue regarding Defendants” alleged liability in this case. Any such evidence should be excluded, as itis not relevant and only relevant evidence is admissible. Evidence Code § 350. In California Evidence Code § 210, relevant evidence is defined as, “.. evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency and reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the aetion.” Evidence Code § 210 (Emphasis added.) Since evidence of Defendants’ knowledge after exposure has no bearing as to any issue in this case, it should be excluded. Furthermore, even if the court were to find some probative value, the confusing and misleading nature of the information would cause a severe prejudicial effect that clearly outweighs any probative value. Moreover, allowing Plaintiffs to present evidence of several decades worth of information post-dating Plaintiff's last alleged exposure to Defendants’ products/conduct would be a waste of judicial time and resources, and the danger of jury confusion dictates the exclusion of such evidence pursuant to Evidence Code § 352. DATED: May 16, 2007 PRINDLE, DECKER & AMARO LLP Attorneys for Defendant, A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY 2 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DOCUMENTS DATED AFTER apni Ove Atertas Bonnin“: DECEDENT'S LAST ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO THEIR PRODUCTS/CONDUCTLaw On PRINDLE, DECKER & AMARO LLP. PROOF OF SERVICE 1am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 369 Pine Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94104. On May _16__, 2007, I electronically served the following documents via Lexis Nexus File and Serve on all parties fisted on the transmission report: DEENDANT A.W, CHESTERTON COMPANY’S: MOTION IN LIMINE RE PRECLUDING DOCUMENTS DATED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S LAST EXPOSURE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is trne and correct. Executed on May 1@>007, at San Francisco, California. JAMESZ-GATLAGHER, JR. 4 A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY'S FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE