On May 08, 2008 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Pique, Frederick, Pique, Godofredo, Pique, Gregory, Pique, Rosita, Sanchez, Marlene, and All Asbestos Defendants, Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust, Asbestos Defendants, Borg-Warner Corporation By Its Successor In, Carlisle Corporation, Caterpillar, Inc., Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, F K A, Cbs Corporation (Fka Viacom Inc., Fka, Coltec Industries, Inc., Crane Co., Csk Auto, Inc., Cummins Inc., Daimler Trucks North America Llc, Dana Companies, Llc, Deere & Company, Designated Defense Counsel, Does 1-8500, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury, Ford Motor Company, Foster Wheeler Llc, Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, General Motors Corporation, Heil Co., Honeywell International, Inc., Honeywell International Inc., F K A Alliedsignal,, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Imo Industries Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Leslie Controls, Inc., Macarthur Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Navistar, Inc., Navistar, Inc.,, Paccar Inc., Parker Hannifin Corporation, Plant Insulation Company, Pneumo Abex Llc, Pneumo Abex Llc, Successor-In-Interest, Quintec Industries, Inc., Rapid-American Corporation, Scandura, Inc., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, The Heil Co.,, Thomas Dee Engineering Co., Inc., Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Tube City Ims Corporation, Utility Trailer Manufacturing, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company, Western Asbestos Company, Western Macarthur Company, for civil 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
28 LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP. ATTORNEYS ar LAW PAUL V. LANKFORD (State Bar No. 181506) plankford@Iclaw.com PAUL LANNUS (State Bar No. 192551) plannus@lelaw.com LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: 925.300.3520 Facsimile: 925.300.3386 Attomeys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco JAN 25 2012 Clerk of the Court BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROSITA PIQUE, as Wrongful Death Heir, and as Successor-In-Interest to GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased; and MARLENE SANCHEZ, GREGORY PIQUE, FREDERICK PIQUE, as Legal Heirs of GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased, “Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP), Defendants. ASBESTOS Case No. CGC 08-274659 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S MOTION IN LimiNE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE To NON ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT FRICTION Exposures By VEHICLE MAKER OR VEHICLE MopeE. [MIL #47] * The use of the term “plaintiff as used herein refers to the plaintiff in a personal injury action and the decedent in a wrongful death action; and the use of “plaintiff” shall refer to both plaintiff in the singular and plural, as appropriate. DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO NON ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT FRICTION EXPOSURES: BY VEHICLE MAKER O8 VEHICLE MODEL [MIL 1/47]28 LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP. ATTORNEYS ar LAW L INTRODUCTION The above-named defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) hereby moves the court i# limine for an order precluding plaintiff from identifying the specific vehicle make (i.e., Ford, General Motors, Chevrolet, Buick, etc.) for any vehicle that allegedly exposed plaintiff to asbestos as the result of contact with a non original equipment (“OEM”) part. Defendant similarly moves the court for an order precluding plaintiff from identifying the specific vehicle model for any vehicle that allegedly exposed plaintiff to asbestos as the result of plaintiff's contact with a non original equipment (“OEM”) part. UL. Tae Court SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE IF ITs PROBATIVE VALUE IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED By Its PREJUDICIAL EFFECT The discretion vested in the Trial Judge in terms of California Evidence Code § 352 requires the Trial Judge to consider: the relationship between the evidence and the relevant inferences to be drawn form it; whether the evidence is relevant to the main issue or only to a collateral issue; the necessity of the evidence to the proponent’s case, as well as the reasons recited in rule 403 for exclusion. See Kessler v. Gray (1978) 77 Cal. App.3d 284, 292 [143 Cal.Rptr. 496]. Under California Evidence Code § 352, the probative value of the offered evidence must clearly outweigh the prejudice it might cause. See, Brainard v. Cotner (1976) 59 Cal_App.3d 790, 795 [130 Cal. Rptr. 915]. Thus, even if evidence of other lawsuits is relevant, the Court should exclude it pursuant to Califernia Evidence Code § 352. Admission of such evidence will require an undue amount of time in presentation and rebuttal, will create a substantial danger of confusing the issues, and will create a substantial danger of misleading the jury. Defendant anticipates plaintiff will reference Defendant as the manufacturer of the vehicles containing components that allegedly exposed plaintiff to asbestos. Plaintiff has not established that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from OEM parts manufactured by Defendant. Plaintiff admits in deposition that he did not know what work may have been performed on the DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO NON ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT FRICTION EXPOSURES: BY VEHICLE MAKER O8 VEHICLE MODEL [MIL 1/47]28 LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP. ATTORNEYS ar LAW vehicles before he did his own work or if the parts he came into contact with were original equipment parts. While Defendant understands plaintiff may need to identify vehicles containing other manufacturers’ OEM parts to establish plaintiff’s overall asbestos exposure history, plaintiff does not need to identify Defendant as the vehicle(s) maker. If the court allows evidence that plaintiff was allegedly exposed to asbestos from non-OEM parts contained on specific vehicles manufactured by Defendant, while Defendant will be entitled to rebut any inference that may be drawn from such evidence (i.e. that the part that allegedly exposed plaintiff to asbestos was not manufactured by Defendant), this will entail an enormous amount of time, which would outweigh the slight probative value of such evidence. Moreover, this testimony will likely inflame the jury in that they will overlook that plaintiff did net present any evidence that Defendant manufactured the part that exposed plaintiff to asbestos. Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 54 Cal. App.4th 998, 1008. It may also confuse the jury into believing that the non-OEM part was manufactured by Defendant. Evidence that may “confuse the issues” or “mislead the jury” may be excluded under Evidence Code § 352. People v. Milner (1988) 45 Cal.3d 227, 238-239; People v. Wagner (1982) 138 CalApp.3d 473, 481. -2- DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO NON ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT FRICTION EXPOSURES: BY VEHICLE MAKER O8 VEHICLE MODEL [MIL 1/47]28 LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP. ATTORNEYS ar LAW Plaintiff should be ordered to simply refer to the type of vehicle (1.2. “pick-up truck”, “sedan” or “dump truck”). Plaintiff should be ordered to establish, in an Evidence Code § 402 hearing, that Defendant is the manufacturer of any part that allegedly caused plaintiff's asbestos exposure before commenting that the offending part was a component on a vehicle manufactured by Defendant. Dated: December 14, 2011 LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP oe es ENA co cont By: PAG AA PAUL V. LANKFORD PAUL LANNUS Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY -3- DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO NON ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT FRICTION EXPOSURES: BY VEHICLE MAKER O8 VEHICLE MODEL [MIL 1/47]