arrow left
arrow right
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

Ce BD mM RB Ww YY — oe uo OS 13 Gordon & Rees LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2060 San Francisco, CA 94111 27 (GOOD/167474/ 16890851. MICHAEL J. PIETRYKOWSKI (SBN: 118677) mpietrykowski@gordonrees.com KATHRYN J. LAFEVERS (SBN: 252003) ELECTRONICALLY klafevers@gordonress.com GORDON & REES LLP $y FILED . iperior Court of California, 775 Battery Steet, Twentieth Floor ee eI > San Francisco, CA 94111 AUG 28 2013 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Clerk of the, Court Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 1 ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ) CASENO, CGC-10-275731 j : Plaintiffs, ) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER ) COMPANY’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO v. ) EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO POST- } 1969 ASBESTOS EXPOSURE FROM ALTA BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY., ) GOODYEARITE, WINGFOOT, OR etal., ) DURABLA GASKET MATERIAL [MIL ) #H Defendants. ) )} Action Filed: December 17, 2010 } Trial Date: September 9, 2013 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (“Goodyear”), before trial and selection of a jury, seeks an order in limine that plaintiffs Robert Ross and Jean Ross (“plaintiffs”) and/or plaintiffs’ counsel abstain from making reference to asbestos exposure from Goodyearite, Wingfoot (originally identified as “Widget”) or Durabla gasket material after 1969. Goodyear further requests an order that plaintiff's’ counsel so inform all of plaintiffs’ witnesses not to make any such reference. Such evidence has no probative value to any of the issues in this action. Moreover, such evidence would create a substantial danger of unduly prejudicing Goodyear and ele THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO POST-1969 ASBESTOS EXPOSURE FROM GOODYEARITE, WINGFOOT, OR DURABLA GASKET MATERIALGordon & Rees LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94411 misleading the jury and would necessitate an undue consumption of time since Goodyear ceased production of asbestos-containing gaskets for sale to any entity in 1969. (Declaration of Kathryn J. LaFevers (“LaFevers Decl.”), Exhibit A ~ Declaration of Gary R. Tompkin (“Tompkin Decl.”), € 3.) Mr. Ross alleges he was exposed to asbestos from working in proximity to others removing and installing “Goodyearite,” “Wingfoot,” and “Durabla” gasket material while he working as an insulator at various jobsites between 1961 and 1977. Mr. Ross admitted he didn’t know the composition of any Goodyearite, Wingfoot or Durabla gasket material he worked around. Goodyear made and sold many sheet gaskets that contained no asbestos from the early part of the 20" Century until at least 1983. (LaFevers Decl., Exhibit A ~ Tompkin Decl., § 3.) Additionally, Goodyear ceased production of all asbestos-containing gasket material in 1969. (LaFevers Decl., Exh. A — Tompkin Decl., €3.) Thus, it is impossible that Mr. Ross was exposed to new asbestos-containing gasket material for which Goodyear is allegedly responsible after 1969. As such, any reference to asbestos exposure from new gasket material manufactured by Goodyear after 1969 is wholly irrelevant and must be excluded. DATED: August 28, 2013 GORDON & REES LLP Attorneys for Defendant THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER. COMPANY 2- THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO POST-1969 ASBESTOS EXPOSURE FROM GOODYEARITE, WINGFOOT, OR DURABLA GASKET MATERIALOo em WA 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE ROBERT ROSS AND JEAN ROSS V. C.C. MOORE & Co. ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER CGC-10-275731 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is: Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On August 28, 2013 I served the within documents: DEFENDANT THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO POST-1969 ASBESTOS EXPOSURE FROM GOODYEARITE, WINGFOOT, OR DURABLA GASKET MATERIAL [MIL#1] by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. by personally having Nationwide Legal, Inc. delivery the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. ood by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at San Francisco, addressed as set forth below. by electronically serving the document(s) described above via File & Serve Xpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt that is located on the File & Serve Xpress website and as set forth below: i BRAYTON“ PURCELL 222 Rush Landing Road Novato, CA 94948 Tele: 415-898-1555 Plaintiffs’ Counsel 1 am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence| for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on_ August 28, 2013 at San Francisco, California. a fy 3 Us fo “eo 4 s Si ed lO> Vanessa Santellan Proof of Service