arrow left
arrow right
  • JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP CONSTANCE MCNEIL, SBN 184526 E-Mail: meneil@Ibbslaw.com ELECTRONICALLY ELIZABETH C. SEARS, SBN 250450 E-Mail: sears@Ibbslaw.com FILED Superior Court of California, One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 County of San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.362.2580 J Fax: 415.434.0882 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk Attomeys for Defendant PLANT INSULATION COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 1L JAMES JORDAN, ) CASE NO. 402113 ) 12 Plaintiff, ) 13 ; ASBESTOS-RELATED 14 } MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 23: TO REQUIRE COURT APPROVAL 15 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, et ai., \ OF DEMONSTRATIVE AND PHYSICAL } EVIDENCE PRIOR TO INTRODUCTION 16 Defendants. Trial Date: January 20, 2009 17 ) Action Filed: December 6, 2001 3 18 19 L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 20 Defendant PLANT INSULATION COMPANY moves this court for an order prohibiting plaintiff, 21 in any way displayingto the jury an demonstrative or other physical plaintiff s witnesses, and attomeys from 22 evidence without first having had the court rule upon the admissibility or use of such evidence, 23 I LEGAL ARGUMENT 24 This court is empowered to grant this motion on the basis of Evidence Code section 352, which 25 states: 26 fa) jt}he court in it: 5 discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is sub- stantially outweighed by the probabi lity that its admissions will necessitate undue 27 consumption of time or (b) create sub: stantial danger of undue prejudice, of con- fusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. 28 4846-9038-2083.1 i MIL 23: TO REQUIRE COURT APPROV AL F DEMONS TRATIVE & PHYSICAL EVID PRIOR TO INTRO PLANT INSULATION COMPANY could suffer undue prejudice if plaintiff is permitted to introduce any demonstrative or other physical evidence that has not previously been identified and ruled upon by the court. Pre-clearing such evidence precludes the distraction caused by displaying irrelevant or inflammatory demonstrative evidence in the courtroom. Ti CONCLUSION The granting of PLANT INSULATION COMPANY’s motion will avoid possible error and/or undue prejudice. Dated: January 6, 2009 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 10 By: 4 SCOsS C. Sears ll Attorney for Defendant PLANT INSULATION COMPANY 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 4846-9038-2083 i 2 EVID PRIOR TO INTRO MIL 23. TO REQUIRE COURT APPROVAL F DEMONSTRATIVE & PHYSICAL