arrow left
arrow right
  • JOYCE JUELCH, ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JOYCE JUELCH, ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JOYCE JUELCH, ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JOYCE JUELCH, ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

28 McKenna LONG é& ALDRIBGE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO LISA L. OBERG (BAR NO, 120139} DANIEL B. HOYE (BAR NO. 139683) ALECIA E. COTTON (BAR NO. 252777) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ELECTRONICALLY 101 California Street FILED 41st Floor Superior Court of California, San Francisco, CA 94111 County of San Francisco Telephone: (415) 267-4000 0 Facsimile: (415) 267-4198 APR 1 13 2010 BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOYCE JUELCH and CASE No. CGC-09-275212 NORMAN JUELCH, SR., DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE FoR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION (MIL 2] Plaintiffs, Vv. TRIAL DATE: APRIL 5, 2010 DEPT.: 604 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, (BP), ef a/., Jupce: HONORABLE Mara J, MILLER Defendants. THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT, by and through its respective counsel (hereinafter “Defendant”), prior to trial and opening statements, moves this Court of an order ir limine that: LL All evidence of the financial condition or profits of individual defendants remaining in this case be excluded from evidence until plaintiffs have produced evidence of a prima facie case of liability for punitive damages as against each individual remaining defendant pursuant to Civil Code section 3295; -1- DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION [MIL 2} ‘SF:27418494 1O OC SD HH BP WwW 10 28 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 2. Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel are instructed not to comment on such evidence or make any attempt to introduce testimony or evidence regarding the same, or refer to the financial condition or profits of the remaining defendants without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence of the jury; and 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel is to inform and instruct all plaintiffs’ witnesses not to make any reference or comment as to such evidence without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence of the jury. This motion is made on the grounds that the introduction of such evidence or arguments would be highly improper and prejudicial to Defendant, under Evidence Code sections 350 and 352, even if the Court were to sustain an objection thereto and properly admonish the jury not to consider such statements. Dated: April 5, 2010 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ov tte GC St Lisa L. OBERG DaNteL B. HOYE ALEcIA E. COTTON Attorneys for Defendant, METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION -2- DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION [MIL 2} SF:27418494. 5