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
Kimberly S. Oberrecht [C.S.B. No. 190794] superiot cdutir Be Bu FORNIA
Cherie A. Enge [C.S.B. No. 134998] COUNTY OF SAN NAROING
SAN BERNAROWIC, OISTHUCT
Cheyenne J. Page [C.S.B. No. 323354]
HORTON, OBERRECHT & KIRKPATRICK
101 W. Broadway, Suite 600 MA 2.5 223
San Diego, California 92101
—~
(619) 232-1183 * (619) 696-5719 [facsimile] wr Se
GREG TREHART, 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 ees CASE NO. CIVDS1908657
11
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN
12 LIMINE FOR AN ORDER
vs. EXCLUDING TESTIMONY BY DR.
13 FRANKLIN REGARDING
RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; PLAINTIFFS’ MARITAL
14 COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba RELATIONSHIP [8 OF 12]
COLORAMA, and DOES | through 100,
15 Inclusive, Action Filed: March 21, 2019
Trial Date: April 10, 2023
16 Defendants. Dept. $15
17
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.
21 Franklin from offering opinions related to impact on Plaintiffs’ marital relationship.
22 Defendants make this motion on the grounds that such evidence lacks probative value, is
23 irrelevant to the issues to be tried by the jury, would cause under prejudice to Defendants and would
24 result in an undue burden on the Court’s time and resources. Accordingly, all such testimony is
25 such to exclusion pursuant to Evidence Code, sections 210, 350, 352, 801, and 802. This motion
26 is also brought pursuant to the controlling legal authority cited below, and is based on the
27 accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and upon such oral and/or documentary
28 evidence which may be presented to the Court at the time of the hearing.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING TESTIMONY BY DR. FRANKLIN RE
PLAINTIFFS’ MARITAL RELATIONSHIP [8 OF 12]
GACLIENTS\S845\TRIAL\DefS MILs\MIL No. 8 - Dr. Franklin (marital relationship). wpd 1
hy
SY
Ny
£>
% oy,
My, “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
Kimberly S. Oberrecht [C.S.B. No. 190794] superiot cdutir Be Bu FORNIA Cherie A. Enge [C.S.B. No. 134998] COUNTY OF SAN NAROING SAN BERNAROWIC, OISTHUCT Cheyenne J. Page [C.S.B. No. 323354] HORTON, OBERRECHT & KIRKPATRICK 101 W. Broadway, Suite 600 MA 2.5 223 San Diego, California 92101 —~ (619) 232-1183 * (619) 696-5719 [facsimile] wr Se GREG TREHART, 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 ees CASE NO. CIVDS1908657 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN 12 LIMINE FOR AN ORDER vs. EXCLUDING TESTIMONY BY DR. 13 FRANKLIN REGARDING RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA; PLAINTIFFS’ MARITAL 14 COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba RELATIONSHIP [8 OF 12] COLORAMA, and DOES | through 100, 15 Inclusive, Action Filed: March 21, 2019 Trial Date: April 10, 2023 16 Defendants. Dept. $15 17 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. 21 Franklin from offering opinions related to impact on Plaintiffs’ marital relationship. 22 Defendants make this motion on the grounds that such evidence lacks probative value, is 23 irrelevant to the issues to be tried by the jury, would cause under prejudice to Defendants and would 24 result in an undue burden on the Court’s time and resources. Accordingly, all such testimony is 25 such to exclusion pursuant to Evidence Code, sections 210, 350, 352, 801, and 802. This motion 26 is also brought pursuant to the controlling legal authority cited below, and is based on the 27 accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and upon such oral and/or documentary 28 evidence which may be presented to the Court at the time of the hearing. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING TESTIMONY BY DR. FRANKLIN RE PLAINTIFFS’ MARITAL RELATIONSHIP [8 OF 12] GACLIENTS\S845\TRIAL\DefS MILs\MIL No. 8 - Dr. Franklin (marital relationship). wpd 1 hy SY Ny £> % oy, My, “ny