On March 21, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mahaffey, Ashley,
Mahaffey, Brian,
and
Colorama Wholesale Nursery,
Medina, Jose,
Wilson, Richard,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
VY
sureriot clu Be Peon
Kimberly S. Oberrecht [C.S.B. No. 190794] COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNAROINS OISTRICT
Cherie A. Enge [C.S.B. No. 134998]
Cheyenne J. Page [C.S.B. No. 323354]
MAR 2 BEond 023
HORTON, OBERRECHT & KIRKPATRICK
101 W. Broadway, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 232-1183 * (619) 696-5719 [facsimile] Ww
GREG TREIHAT, DEPLITY
Attorneys for Defendants RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; and COLORAMA
WHOLESALE NURSERY dba COLORAMA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT
10
BRIAN MAHAFFEY & ASHLEY MAHAFFEY, ) CASE NO. CIVDS1908657
11
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN
12 LIMINE FOR AN ORDER
vs. EXCLUDING TESTIMONY BY DR.
13 ROGER REGARDING A
RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND
14 COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba LIMITING THE TESTIMONY TO
COLORAMA, and DOES | through 100, THAT OF A NON-RETAINED
15S Inclusive, EXPERT WITNESS [5 OF 12]
16 Defendants. Action Filed: March 21, 2019
Trial Date: April 10, 2023
17 Dept. S15
18 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
19 Defendants RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; and COLORAMA WHOLESALE
20 NURSERY dba COLORAMA (“Defendants”) move this Court for any order precluding Dr. Roger
21 from rendering opinions related to the diagnosis of a Traumatic Brain Injury and the necessary
22 treatment and reasonable costs thereof; and limiting Dr. Roger’s opinions to that of a non-retained
23 expert witness.
24 Defendants make this motion on the grounds that such evidence lacks probative value, is
25 irrelevant to the issues to be tried by the jury, would cause under prejudice to Defendants and would
26 result in an undue burden on the Court’s time and resources. Accordingly, all such testimony is
27 such to exclusion pursuant to Evidence Code, sections 210, 350, 352, 801, and 802. This motion
28 is also brought pursuant to the controlling legal authority cited below, and is based on the
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING TESTIMONY BY DR. ROGER
[5 OF 12]
| GACLIENTS(S845\TRIAL\Defs MILs\MIL No. 5- Dr. Roger.wpd 1
Ny
One
Y
“p
%% FY te Pi,
Ny
Document Filed Date
March 28, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 21, 2019
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
VY sureriot clu Be Peon Kimberly S. Oberrecht [C.S.B. No. 190794] COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNAROINS OISTRICT Cherie A. Enge [C.S.B. No. 134998] Cheyenne J. Page [C.S.B. No. 323354] MAR 2 BEond 023 HORTON, OBERRECHT & KIRKPATRICK 101 W. Broadway, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 232-1183 * (619) 696-5719 [facsimile] Ww GREG TREIHAT, DEPLITY Attorneys for Defendants RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; and COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba COLORAMA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 BRIAN MAHAFFEY & ASHLEY MAHAFFEY, ) CASE NO. CIVDS1908657 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN 12 LIMINE FOR AN ORDER vs. EXCLUDING TESTIMONY BY DR. 13 ROGER REGARDING A RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND 14 COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba LIMITING THE TESTIMONY TO COLORAMA, and DOES | through 100, THAT OF A NON-RETAINED 15S Inclusive, EXPERT WITNESS [5 OF 12] 16 Defendants. Action Filed: March 21, 2019 Trial Date: April 10, 2023 17 Dept. S15 18 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 19 Defendants RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; and COLORAMA WHOLESALE 20 NURSERY dba COLORAMA (“Defendants”) move this Court for any order precluding Dr. Roger 21 from rendering opinions related to the diagnosis of a Traumatic Brain Injury and the necessary 22 treatment and reasonable costs thereof; and limiting Dr. Roger’s opinions to that of a non-retained 23 expert witness. 24 Defendants make this motion on the grounds that such evidence lacks probative value, is 25 irrelevant to the issues to be tried by the jury, would cause under prejudice to Defendants and would 26 result in an undue burden on the Court’s time and resources. Accordingly, all such testimony is 27 such to exclusion pursuant to Evidence Code, sections 210, 350, 352, 801, and 802. This motion 28 is also brought pursuant to the controlling legal authority cited below, and is based on the DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING TESTIMONY BY DR. ROGER [5 OF 12] | GACLIENTS(S845\TRIAL\Defs MILs\MIL No. 5- Dr. Roger.wpd 1 Ny One Y “p %% FY te Pi, Ny