arrow left
arrow right
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 & li ont S z 12 ge Bb =< 2 g 14 me is 8 E16 3o 17 n 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 209876,4 1077.28787 RICHARD D. DUMONT (SBN 107967) rdumont@selmanbreitman.com PAUL J, GAMBA (SBN 146097) ELECTRONICALLY amba@selmanbreitman.com FILED ‘LMAN BREITMAN LLP Superior Court of California, 33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor County of San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94105 OCT 29 2010 Telephone: tats 979-0400 Clerk of the Court Facsimile: 415) 979-2099 BY: JUANITA D. MURPHY Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant LAMONS GASKET COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LOUIS CASTAGNA, Case No. CGC-07-274230 Plaintiff, MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE LAY OPINIONS THAT Vv. ASBESTOS FIBERS WERE RELEASED OR THAT VISIBLE ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP), DUST CONTAINED ASBESTOS FIBERS - Motion in Limine No. 14 Action Filed: June 6, 2007 Trial Date: October 29, 2010 Defendant. Defendant LAMONS GASKET COMPANY (hereinafter referred to as "LAMONS') herein submits the following motion in limine for an Order to preclude lay opinion testimony regarding products emitting asbestos fibers. L INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs are expected to offer lay witnesses to testify that various products emitted or released asbestos fiber, i.c. those conditions at decedent's work sites "were dusty." Such lay opinion testimony is inadmissible as a matter of law and should be precluded. 1. ARGUMENT California Evidence Code section 800 provides that lay opinions are limited to opinions that are rationally based on the perception of the witness. Lay witnesses may not 1 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE LAY OPINIONS THAT ASBESTOS FIBERS WERE RELEASED OR THAT VISIBLE DUST CONTAINED ASBESTOS FIBERS - MIL NO. 14oO we NY DR A RB BRN pee kkk et OT Be Nm OO ATTORNEYS AT LAW Selman Breitman LLP Pp RRR SB BS BS 3 Ne x 28 207876,1 1077,28787 express opinions that are beyond common knowledge or experience. (People v. McAlpin (1991) Cal.3d 1289, 1308.) In other words, California Evidence Code section 800 and the cases interpreting and applying it require that (1) the witness actually “perceive” that matter they are opining about; and (2) that the proffered opinion not be about a matter beyond common experience. Thus, although a lay witness may be able to attest to the fact that dust of some kind was emitted or released by a product, it is beyond the capability of such a lay witness to opine whether the dust that was emitted was contained asbestos. Such a conclusion is beyond common experience and therefore, any testimony regarding the content of asbestos dust, based on the mere viewing of dust, is improper. Il. =CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, defendant Lamons respectfully requests this Court issue an order precluding lay opinions that asbestos fibers were released. DATED: October 28, 2010 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP By:_A/ Paul J Gamba HARD D. DUMONT PAUL J. GAMBA Attorneys for Defendant LAMONS GASKET COMPANY 2 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE LAY OPINIONS THAT ASBESTOS FIBERS WERE RELEASED OR THAT VISIBLE DUST CONTAINED ASBESTOS FIBERS - MIL NO. 142 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bl wl 12 as a3 2B qe ve oe 1 hi ME 15 Se Se 16 <= & a 17 n 18 19 20 2 22 2 24 25 26 27 28 207576.1 1077,28787 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Louis Castagna v. Asbestos Defendants (BP) San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-07-274230 Defendant: LAMONS GASKET COMPANY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO lam employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105. On the date shown below, | electronically served the following document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve described as MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE LAY OPINIONS THAT ASBESTOS FIBERS WERE RELEASED OR THAT VISIBLE DUST CONTAINED ASBESTOS FIBERS - Motion in Limine No. 14 on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. _ Executed on october? &, 2010, at San Francisco, California. My fw < Oona Elrod 3 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE LAY OPINIONS THAT ASBESTOS FIBERS WERE RELEASED OR THAT VISIBLE DUST CONTAINED ASBESTOS FIBERS - MIL NO. 14