On August 14, 2020 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Stephens, Donnetta,
and
Crown Ace Hardware,
Does 1 Through 100 Inclusive,
Monsato Company,
Wilbur-Ellis Company, Llc,
Wilbur-Ellis Nutrition, Llc,
for Product Liability Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
QRWGNAxx
Bart H. Williams (State Bar No. 134009)
bwilliams@proskauer.com
Manuel F. Cachén (State Bar No. 216987) F
mcachan proskauer.com
i L E
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CAUF R
Shawn S. edingham, Jr. (State Bar No. 275268) COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARLgNglA
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
sledingham proskauer.com
PROSKAU R ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East JUL 1 2 2021
Suite 2400
n
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 557-2900
Facsunile: (3 10) 557-2 193
BY
ézt% P!
G. R.JfREA‘:3
AY, DEPUTY
Lee M‘ Popkin (admitted pro hac vice)
l opkin proskauercom
6. Jenni er Yang (admitted pro hac vice)
jyang proskauer.com
PROS UER ROSE LLP
11 Times S uare
New York, 10036
10 Telephone: (212) 969-3000
Facsnnile: (212) 969-2900
11
Attorneys for Defendants
12 MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN ACE
HARDWARE
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
15 DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2 1 04801
16 Plaintifl‘ DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12
17
vs.
T0 EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCES TO
MONSANTO COMPANY, WILBUR—ELLIS
PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT ABOUT NOT
18 BEING CLOSE TO HER CHILDREN
NUTRITION, LLC AND CROWN ACE
HARDWARE, Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa
19
Dept: SZ4-SBJC
Defendants.
20 Complaint Filed: August 4, 2020
Trial Date: July 19, 2021
Hearing Date: July 15, 2021
21
Time: 9:00 am.
22
£Fi1¢d concurrently with Declaration of Shawn S.
edmgham, Jr]
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIAHNE NO. 12
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff” s Motion in Limine 12 seeks to exclude Defendants fi'om making any reference t0
statements made by the Plaintiff that she is not close to her children. Plaintiff contends that such
evidence is not relevant and is unduly prejudicial. Both arguments fail. First, this evidence is
relevant because it bears on the credibility of Plaintiff s sons David and Scott, both of Whom are
witnesses in this case, and their testimony regarding Plaintiff’s alleged Roundup usage. Further,
Plaintiff herself intends to introduce evidence ofher close family relationships and it would be
prejudicial to Defendants if they were not permitted to cross examine her on this topic once raised in
direct examination. Finally, that certain statements made by Mrs. Stephens in deposition conflict
10 with the picture Plaintiff” s lawyers hoped to paint 0f their client does not make the evidence unduly
11 prejudicial.
12 II. BACKGROUND
13 A. Plaintiff’s Testimony Regarding Her Relationship with Her Children
14 Plaintiff sat for a tfial preservation deposition 0n February 4, 2021. Plaintiff s counsel
15 conducted a direct examination during which he displayed multiple pictures of
Mrs. Stephens with
16 her children through the years and elicited testimony regarding the
activities they liked to d0 as a
17 family, such as camping trips and line dancing. See Omnibus Declaration of Shawn S. Ledingham,
18 Jr. in Support of Defendants’ Oppositions t0 Plaintiff s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 Through 12
19 (“Ledingham Decl.”), Ex. 27 (Plaintiff Feb. 4, 2021 Dep.) at 11:3-18:25, 37:8-23; 44:20-45:23;
20 5220-533; 53:21—5515; Id., EX. 28 (Plaintiff Feb. 4, 2021 Dep., Exs. 2-7, 9-1 1, 35). Mrs. Stephens
21 testified that before her NHL diagnosis, she “loved to travel and be with [her] kids camping and
22 doing things” and claimed that one of the ways “cancer has changed life” is that
[her] she no longer
23 able to do these activities. 161., Ex. 27 (Plaintiff Feb. 4, 2021 Dep.) at 52222-533; 53:21—54:7.
24 During her May 26, 2021 deposition, Plaintiff testified that she has “never been close to
[her]
25 Children.” Id_, Ex. 29 (Plaintiff May 26, 2021 Dep) at 226112-13. When asked Whether she would
26 “describe [herjself as close to David, [her] son,” she responded
clearly and succinctly: “N0.” Id. at
27 226:9-1 I. Mrs. Stephens did, however, note that since David has been “trying to
work with her to
7¥7
28 understand” the litigation, the two are speaking more frequently. 1d. at 22524-22623. When asked
_ 1 _
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 12
Document Filed Date
July 12, 2021
Case Filing Date
August 14, 2020
Category
Product Liability Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
QRWGNAxx Bart H. Williams (State Bar No. 134009) bwilliams@proskauer.com Manuel F. Cachén (State Bar No. 216987) F mcachan proskauer.com i L E SUPERIOR COURT 0F CAUF R Shawn S. edingham, Jr. (State Bar No. 275268) COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARLgNglA SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT sledingham proskauer.com PROSKAU R ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East JUL 1 2 2021 Suite 2400 n Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsunile: (3 10) 557-2 193 BY ézt% P! G. R.JfREA‘:3 AY, DEPUTY Lee M‘ Popkin (admitted pro hac vice) l opkin proskauercom 6. Jenni er Yang (admitted pro hac vice) jyang proskauer.com PROS UER ROSE LLP 11 Times S uare New York, 10036 10 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsnnile: (212) 969-2900 11 Attorneys for Defendants 12 MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN ACE HARDWARE 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 15 DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2 1 04801 16 Plaintifl‘ DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 17 vs. T0 EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCES TO MONSANTO COMPANY, WILBUR—ELLIS PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT ABOUT NOT 18 BEING CLOSE TO HER CHILDREN NUTRITION, LLC AND CROWN ACE HARDWARE, Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa 19 Dept: SZ4-SBJC Defendants. 20 Complaint Filed: August 4, 2020 Trial Date: July 19, 2021 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021 21 Time: 9:00 am. 22 £Fi1¢d concurrently with Declaration of Shawn S. edmgham, Jr] 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIAHNE NO. 12 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff” s Motion in Limine 12 seeks to exclude Defendants fi'om making any reference t0 statements made by the Plaintiff that she is not close to her children. Plaintiff contends that such evidence is not relevant and is unduly prejudicial. Both arguments fail. First, this evidence is relevant because it bears on the credibility of Plaintiff s sons David and Scott, both of Whom are witnesses in this case, and their testimony regarding Plaintiff’s alleged Roundup usage. Further, Plaintiff herself intends to introduce evidence ofher close family relationships and it would be prejudicial to Defendants if they were not permitted to cross examine her on this topic once raised in direct examination. Finally, that certain statements made by Mrs. Stephens in deposition conflict 10 with the picture Plaintiff” s lawyers hoped to paint 0f their client does not make the evidence unduly 11 prejudicial. 12 II. BACKGROUND 13 A. Plaintiff’s Testimony Regarding Her Relationship with Her Children 14 Plaintiff sat for a tfial preservation deposition 0n February 4, 2021. Plaintiff s counsel 15 conducted a direct examination during which he displayed multiple pictures of Mrs. Stephens with 16 her children through the years and elicited testimony regarding the activities they liked to d0 as a 17 family, such as camping trips and line dancing. See Omnibus Declaration of Shawn S. Ledingham, 18 Jr. in Support of Defendants’ Oppositions t0 Plaintiff s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 Through 12 19 (“Ledingham Decl.”), Ex. 27 (Plaintiff Feb. 4, 2021 Dep.) at 11:3-18:25, 37:8-23; 44:20-45:23; 20 5220-533; 53:21—5515; Id., EX. 28 (Plaintiff Feb. 4, 2021 Dep., Exs. 2-7, 9-1 1, 35). Mrs. Stephens 21 testified that before her NHL diagnosis, she “loved to travel and be with [her] kids camping and 22 doing things” and claimed that one of the ways “cancer has changed life” is that [her] she no longer 23 able to do these activities. 161., Ex. 27 (Plaintiff Feb. 4, 2021 Dep.) at 52222-533; 53:21—54:7. 24 During her May 26, 2021 deposition, Plaintiff testified that she has “never been close to [her] 25 Children.” Id_, Ex. 29 (Plaintiff May 26, 2021 Dep) at 226112-13. When asked Whether she would 26 “describe [herjself as close to David, [her] son,” she responded clearly and succinctly: “N0.” Id. at 27 226:9-1 I. Mrs. Stephens did, however, note that since David has been “trying to work with her to 7¥7 28 understand” the litigation, the two are speaking more frequently. 1d. at 22524-22623. When asked _ 1 _ DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 12