On September 24, 2007 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
and
for (Breach of Contract/Warranty)
in the District Court of Sacramento County.
Preview
STEPHANIE J. FINELLI, SBN 173462
Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli FfLEO
2 1007-7th Street, Suite 500 Superior Court Of ^aliforniaj
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento
3 tel 916-443-2144
fax 916-443-1511 12/22/2010
4 iwhitfseld
Attomey for Plaintiffs,
5 ^1 IJ Deputy
FLORENTINE and RODNEY ABBOTT
Casa Numbur:
6
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
9
10 FLORENTINE AND RODNEY ABBOTT, CaseNo.:07AS04450
11 Plainfiffs, PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO R4C0RP'S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
12 vs. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT
PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY
13 RONALD BRITSCHGI, et. al..
Hearing on Motion: January 7, 2011
14 Defendants Time: 10:00 a.m.
Trial Date: January 18, 2011
15 Judge: Brian Van Camp
Dept: 43
16
17 This is again one of those motions in limine that serves no purpose and would require the
18 court to mle in a vacuum. R4 Corp has not pointed to any evidence it believes plaintiff will seek
19 to introduce that was not produced in discovery. More importantly, it is only evidence that was
20 improperly withheld during discovery that could possibly be excluded at trial, if a party did nol
21 ask for certain evidence, then the opposing party cannot have withheld it.
22 Addltionaily, R4Corp seems to be asking the court to exclude evidence not produced to it
23 during discovery. But R4Corp did not perform discovery. It has been named as a successor in
24 interest to defendant CA Construction. There is simply no basis for allowing a successor to
25 exclude such evidence at trial
26 And CA Constmction has not made a similar motion. Thus, it has not asked to exclude
27 evidence regarding CA Constmction that was not produced during discovery.
28
Opposition to Motion in Limine -1
1 If plaintiffs seek to introduce evidence that the court mles has been improperly withheld
2 from discovery, then it may object and get a mling on that piece of evidence. But it is premature
3 and unworkable for this Court to make a mling before trial even starts as to what evidence might
4 be introduced which defendants are as yet unaware of and do not even know if they asked for in
5 discovery.
6 The motion must be denied. In the altemative, CA Constmction and R4Corp should
7 likewise be barred from introducing evidence they did not produce in discovery.
8
9
Dated: December"^, 2010
10
Stephanie J. Finelli,
11 Attomey for Plaintiffs
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Opposition to Motion in Limine - 2
Document Filed Date
December 22, 2010
Case Filing Date
September 24, 2007
Category
(Breach of Contract/Warranty)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.