arrow left
arrow right
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                Gordon & Rees LLP

101 W. Broadway

Suite 2000
San Diega, CA 92101

Co OM WD

10
MW
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ROGER M. MANSUKHANI (SBN; 164463)
STEVEN SOBEL (SBN: 177210)
MITCHELL B. MALACHOWSKI (SBN: 245595) ELECTRONICALLY
GORDON & REES LLP FILED

101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 Superior Court of California,
San Diego, CA 92101 County of San Francisco
Phone: (619) 696-6700 JUL 11 2011

Fax: (619) 696-7124 Clerk of the Court

BY: RAYMOND K. WONG
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA -
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE
CASE NO. CGC-08-274566
DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC
CO.’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS [MIL #25 of 29]

RODRICK BRECKLER and
JOANN BRECKLER,

Plaintiffs,
vs.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) As

Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, H, I; and Filing date: March 12, 2008
DOES 1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST.) Trial date: July 11, 2011
)

eee

L INTRODUCTION
Defendant Pacific Scientific Co. (“Defendant”) anticipates Plaintiffs will seek to

introduce evidence of mediation and/or settlement negotiations entered into by Defendant.
Evidence of settlement negotiations or settlements is inadmissible to prove liability and can only
have a prejudicial effect on Defendant. Thus, by way of this motion, Defendant seeks to exclude
any and all references to settlement negotiations or mediations in this case. References to
settlement negotiations or mediations should be excluded because:
e California law prohibits the admission of evidence of statements made during
mediations and settlement negotiations. (Evid. Code. §§ 1119 and 1152.)
Evidence of settlement negotiations is inadmissible to prove liability, as are any

statements made during settlement negotiations. (Evid. Code § 1/52.) Evidence

-1-
MOTION EN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS,
EMIL #25 of 291Gordon & Rees LLP

101 W. Broadway

Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

relating to mediations is inadmissible for any purpose except by the agreement of
all parties. (Evid. Code § 1119.)

« Admitting evidence relating to mediations or settlement negotiations would
substantially and unfairly prejudice Defendant. Evidence that Defendant
engaged in settlement negotiations or mediations totally lacks probative value and
can only serve to mislead and confuse the jury. (Evid. Code. § 352.) Such
evidence would mislead the jury into thinking Defendant admits liability for
Plaintiffs’ injury and the jury’s mistaken belief would substantially prejudice
Defendant.

For these reasons, references to settlements or settlement negotiations entered into by

Defendant should be excluded.
Il. DISCUSSION

A. Evidence Relating To Mediations Or Settlement Negotiations Is Inadmissible

L Evidence relating to mediations is inadmissible for any purpose under
Evidence Code section 1119

No evidence relating to a mediation is admissible for any purpose. (Evid. Code.§ 1119.)

Evidence Code section 1119 provides in relevant part:

(a) No evidence of anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the

course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation is admissible or

subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in any

arbitration, administrative adjudication, civil action, or other noncriminal

proceeding in which, pursuant to law, testimony can be compelled to be given.

All writings related to mediations are similarly made inadmissible § 1119(b) and all
“communications, negotiations [and] settlement discussions” between the participants in a
mediation are confidential. (dd. at subd. (c).) The prohibition on the introduction of evidence

related to mediations is so strict that mediation materials are even protected from discovery.

2. Evidence of settlements, settlement offers, or settlement negotiations, is
inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1152

Evidence Code section 1152(a) provides:

Evidence that a person has, in compromise or from humanitarian motives,
-2-

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
[MIL #25 of 291Gordon & Rees LLP

101 W. Broadway

Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

eo eID Hh BB YW NY we

NY NN NR YN ON NR Rm me
oc TN KD A RB YW Bb =F SD © eH DH FB BN B&F

furnished or offered, or promised to furnish money or any other thing, act, or
service to another who had sustained or will sustain or claims that he or she has
sustained or will sustain loss or damage, as well as any conduct or statements
made in negotiation thereof, is inadmissible to prove his or her liability for the
loss or damage or any part of it.

The purpose of this prohibition on the introduction of any evidence relating to the
existence or content of settlement negotiations is that the law favors settlement of civil dispute
and if evidence relating to the existence or content of settlement negotiations was made
admissible, parties would be far less willing to offer compromise and settlement. “The rule
[making evidence relating to settlement negotiations inadmissible] prevents parties from being
deterred from making offers of settlement and facilitates the type of candid discussion that may
lead to settlement.” (Carney v. Santa Cruz Women Against Rape (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1009,
1023.)

Because the admission of evidence relating to mediation or settlement negotiations would
violate California law and be against the public policy favoring settlement the court must exclude

such evidence.

B. Admitting Evidence Of Mediations or Settlement Negotiations Would Substantially
And Unfairly Prejudice Defendant

As noted above, evidence relating to mediations and settlement negotiations is
inadmissible under the Evidence Code. Additionally, the introduction of such evidence could
only serve to unfairly prejudice Defendant. Evidence of mediations and settlements would
necessarily serve to mislead the jury, which would assume that the mere participation in
mediations and settlement negotiations is an admission of liability on the part of Defendant. This
prejudice would be substantially exacerbated if the content of these negotiations were admitted
into evidence.

The admission of evidence relating to mediations or settlement negotiations is prohibited
by law, against public policy and would unfairly prejudice Defendant. Accordingly, such
evidence should be excluded.

Ht
ti
-3-

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
[MIL #25 of 291oO Om WD

10
ll
12
13
14
15

Suite 2000

101 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

16

Gordon & Rees LLP

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DANPS/1035195/9992225v.1

il, CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the instant motion and exclude any and
all references to the existence or content of mediations or settlement negotiations.
Dated: July L. 2011 GORDON & REES LLP
Le ELF

Roger M. Mansukhani

Steven Sobel

Mitchell B. Malachowski
Attorneys for Defendant
PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.

By:

-4-

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
TMIL #25 of 291