Motion,Ex Parte: KENNETH MOSES SR. VS. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                2
E
é
z
&
4

fe
a
2
~
0
a
a
x
°
o
8
~
a
Zz
a
a
4
9°
°
2
a
<
B
<
z

.
E
Be

CA 94104

vn

Theodore T. Cordery, Esq. (Bar No. 114730)

Email: teordery@itke.com

Michael J. Boland, Esq. (Bar No. 98343)

E-mail: mboland@itke.com ELECTRONICALLY
Tina Yim, Esq. (Bar No. 232597) FILED
Email: tyim@itke.com Superior Court of Caiffornia,
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP County of San Francisco
100 BUSH STREET, SUITE 1300 10/21/: 2015
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 lerk of the Cou
Telephone: — (415) 675-7000 ence eeputy Clerk
Facsimile: (415) 675-7008

Attorneys for Intervenors

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., and

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,

Sucessor in Interest to Zurich Insurance Company, US Branch
(on behalf of their insured RICH-TEX, INC.)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
KENNETH MOSES, SR, CASE NO.: CGC-13-276180
Plaintiff, (ASBESTOS)
v. JOINT DEFENSE OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; et al., REGARDING IMPROPER QUESTIONING
OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING
Defendants. VOIR DIRE

Dept: 306
Judge: Hon. Richard Ulmer

Complaint Filed: August 21, 2013
Trial Date: November 9. 2015

Intervenors HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, WEST AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY CoO., and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Successor in Interest to
Zurich Insurance Company, US Branch (on behalf of their insured RICH-TEX, INC.) (“Rich-

-l-
JOINT DEFENSE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER
QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRELAW OFFICES

IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP

SUITE 1300

100 BUSH STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

(415) 675-7000

Tex”) hereby provide the following opposition on behalf of all remaining Defendants in this
action.
I. OPPOSITION

Defendants object to this motion as it is not actually a motion in limine. The purpose of a
motion in limine is to exclude prejudicial or objectionable evidence from a jury. (Blanks v. Shaw
(2009) 171 Cal. App. 4" 336, 375.) It is also to “facilitate the management of a case, generally by
deciding difficult evidentiary issues in advance of trial.” (Amtower v. Photo Dynamics (2008) 158
Cal. App. 4"" 1582, 1593.) What in limine motions are not designed to do is replace a dispositive
motion prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. (/d.) If a trial court is to utilize such a motion
to dispose of the case, cause of action, or affirmative defense for evidentiary reasons, the court
should keep in mind that such grant of such motion is not favored and that all inferences and
conflicts in evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party. (Id. at 1595.)

Here, Plaintiff's “motion in limine” regarding improper questioning of jurors during voir
dire is not a motion in limine as it does not seek to exclude any piece of specific evidence. Rather,
this “motion in limine” is merely a brief regarding the conduct of attorneys at Trial. As such, it is
an improper and seeks to have the Court make a speculative and vague ruling. No admonition is
required, and no anticipatory or advisory opinion necessary to enforce the rules regarding
appropriate voir dire. Should any part ask any improper questions during voir dire in this case,
Defendants are sure that this Court would sustain a well-taken and timely objection.

In spite of the foregoing, Defendants will refrain from improper questioning at voir dire as
long as such restraint is reciprocated by Plaintiff's counsel.

If
Mt

2-
JOINT DEFENSE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER
QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRELAW OFFICES

IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP

SUITE 1300

EET

Il. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that this Court deny this motion

in limine.

Dated: October 21, 2015

IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LL

By: Trew Uf— ‘
Michael J. Boland U
Tina Yim
Attorneys for Intervenors
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, WEST AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., and
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,
Sucessor in Interest to Zurich Insurance
Company, US Branch (on behalf of their
insured RICH-TEX, INC.)

3.

JOINT DEFENSE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER
QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE,94104

& CORDERY, LLP

LAW OFFICES
SUITE

IMAI, TADLOCK, KEEN

1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, the undersigned, declare:

3 Tama resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to the within action; my business address is 100 Bush Street, Suite 1300, San Francisco, CA
4|| 94104. On the date of execution below, I served the within documents:

5 JOINT DEFENSE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
REGARDING IMPROPER QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING
6 VOIR DIRE

> On the date of execution below, I electronically served the document via File &
8 ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the
File & ServeXpress Web site.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
10]! is true and correct. Executed on October 21, 2015, at San Francisco, California.

1
2 Ayvaurthe (Ornsa Uh
B Samantha Oryalf_)

14|| Moses, Kenneth, Sr.. v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.., et al.
SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT NO. CGC-13-276180

4n
JOINT DEFENSE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER
QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE