On January 31, 2013 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Investment Concepts Inc,
Summerridge 121 Lp,
Perez, Lorena Ann,
and
Investment Concepts Inc,
Liberty Landscaping, Inc,
Summerridge 121 Lp,
for PI personal injury not MV
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
a t
1 LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK J MCDONOUGH su a r
UE EFt RN A
J r
Dirk E Silva SBN 134135 sw v
a4 v
r ar W sr s
i icr
2 P O Box 51457 3633 E Inland Empire Boulevard Suite 450
Ontario CA 91764 S 1 7 2015
3
Telephone 909 890 4667
4 Facsimile 909 890 4208 y p
QRu y
5 Attorneys for Defendant Cross Defendant LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC
6
7
g SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 LORENA ANN PEREZ Case No CIWS 1300296
Complaint filed January 31 2013
12 Plaintiff Assigned to Hon Wilfred J Schneider Jr
Dept S32
13
LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S
14 SUMMER RIDGE APARTMENTS et al
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION
15 Defendants IN LIMINE NO 3 O EXCLUDE
TESTIMONY OF JOHN C GARDINER
16 PH D P E
SUMMERRIDGE 121 LP dba SUMMER RIDGE
1 APARTMENTS and INVESTMENT TRIAL DATE September 14 2015
CONCEPTS INC
18
Cross Complainants
19
v
20
LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC and ROES 1
21 through 10 inclusive
22 Cross Defendants
23
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
24
Cross Defendant LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC hereinafter LIBERTY hereby
25
submits its Opposition to Plaintiff s Motion in Limine No 3 To Exclude Testimony of John C
26
Gardiner
27
28
LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE NO 3 TO EXCLUDE
TESTIMONY OF JOHN C GARDINER PH D P E
1
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3
I INTRODUCTION
4
Plaintiff s Motion in Limine No 3 seeks exclusion of the testimony of LIBERTY s expert
5
John C Gardiner Ph D P E in its entirely
witness
Further Plaintiff seeks orders requiring all
6
attorneys to instruct their witnesses of the exclusionary arder and Defendant s attorney prior to
7
discussion of the excluded matters to approach the bench and offer proof to the court for a preliminary
8
determination of relevancy and admissibility Plaintiff s primary goal is to exclude harmful testimony
9
that LIBERTY s expert is anticipated to introduce
10
The Motion was served on September 1 2015
11
II ARGUMENT
12
LIBERTY s expert is expected to testify in essence that if Plaintiff fell from the crouching
13
position it is unlikely she sustained any cervical disc injury like she is claiming in this case This
14
evidence is both highly relevant and
highly probative As such it must be allowed under California
15
Evidence Code Section 210
16
The main reason relevant evidence is excluded is if it is unduly prejudicial to a party Here the
17
evidence is not
unduly prejudicial The evidence is just unfavorable to Plaintiff which is not a
18
justification to exclude any evidence
Plaintiff s Motion is simply an attempt to have the Court
19
exclude highly probative evidence which is damaging to Plaintiff s claim for damages Plaintiff s
20
motion is without merit
The testimony of LIBERTY s expert is highly relevant to LIBERTY s
21
argument concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff s damages Thus such testimony is admissible
22
under California Evidence Code Sections 350 and 351 and should be admitted
23
Furthermore as demonstrated in LIBERTY s Designation of Expert Witnesses Dr Gardiner is
24
well qualified to express the opinions Plaintiff wishes to exclude Had Dr Gardiner not been
25
qualified Plaintiff should have filed a motion in limine seeking to disqualify him as lacking the
26
experience education and training to qualify as an expert in his field It is within the Court s
27
discretion to make such a determination as to the qualifications of an expert witness and exclude such
28 2
LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE NO 3 TO EXCLUDE
TESTIMONY OF JOHN C GARDINER PH D P E
Document Filed Date
September 17, 2015
Case Filing Date
January 31, 2013
Category
PI personal injury not MV
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
a t 1 LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK J MCDONOUGH su a r UE EFt RN A J r Dirk E Silva SBN 134135 sw v a4 v r ar W sr s i icr 2 P O Box 51457 3633 E Inland Empire Boulevard Suite 450 Ontario CA 91764 S 1 7 2015 3 Telephone 909 890 4667 4 Facsimile 909 890 4208 y p QRu y 5 Attorneys for Defendant Cross Defendant LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC 6 7 g SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 LORENA ANN PEREZ Case No CIWS 1300296 Complaint filed January 31 2013 12 Plaintiff Assigned to Hon Wilfred J Schneider Jr Dept S32 13 LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S 14 SUMMER RIDGE APARTMENTS et al OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION 15 Defendants IN LIMINE NO 3 O EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF JOHN C GARDINER 16 PH D P E SUMMERRIDGE 121 LP dba SUMMER RIDGE 1 APARTMENTS and INVESTMENT TRIAL DATE September 14 2015 CONCEPTS INC 18 Cross Complainants 19 v 20 LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC and ROES 1 21 through 10 inclusive 22 Cross Defendants 23 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD 24 Cross Defendant LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC hereinafter LIBERTY hereby 25 submits its Opposition to Plaintiff s Motion in Limine No 3 To Exclude Testimony of John C 26 Gardiner 27 28 LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE NO 3 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF JOHN C GARDINER PH D P E 1 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 I INTRODUCTION 4 Plaintiff s Motion in Limine No 3 seeks exclusion of the testimony of LIBERTY s expert 5 John C Gardiner Ph D P E in its entirely witness Further Plaintiff seeks orders requiring all 6 attorneys to instruct their witnesses of the exclusionary arder and Defendant s attorney prior to 7 discussion of the excluded matters to approach the bench and offer proof to the court for a preliminary 8 determination of relevancy and admissibility Plaintiff s primary goal is to exclude harmful testimony 9 that LIBERTY s expert is anticipated to introduce 10 The Motion was served on September 1 2015 11 II ARGUMENT 12 LIBERTY s expert is expected to testify in essence that if Plaintiff fell from the crouching 13 position it is unlikely she sustained any cervical disc injury like she is claiming in this case This 14 evidence is both highly relevant and highly probative As such it must be allowed under California 15 Evidence Code Section 210 16 The main reason relevant evidence is excluded is if it is unduly prejudicial to a party Here the 17 evidence is not unduly prejudicial The evidence is just unfavorable to Plaintiff which is not a 18 justification to exclude any evidence Plaintiff s Motion is simply an attempt to have the Court 19 exclude highly probative evidence which is damaging to Plaintiff s claim for damages Plaintiff s 20 motion is without merit The testimony of LIBERTY s expert is highly relevant to LIBERTY s 21 argument concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff s damages Thus such testimony is admissible 22 under California Evidence Code Sections 350 and 351 and should be admitted 23 Furthermore as demonstrated in LIBERTY s Designation of Expert Witnesses Dr Gardiner is 24 well qualified to express the opinions Plaintiff wishes to exclude Had Dr Gardiner not been 25 qualified Plaintiff should have filed a motion in limine seeking to disqualify him as lacking the 26 experience education and training to qualify as an expert in his field It is within the Court s 27 discretion to make such a determination as to the qualifications of an expert witness and exclude such 28 2 LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE NO 3 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF JOHN C GARDINER PH D P E