On January 24, 2020 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Williams, Barbara,
and
Maldonado, Mariclare,
Wilson, Troy,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
_________________________________
1 McClaugherty & Associates ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
Jay S. McClaugherty (State Bar No. 99063) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
2 Email: iay.mcc1aughertymcctrials.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Hayden T. Traver (State Bar No. 317428) 12/6/2023 3:47 PM
3 Email: hayden.traver(mcctrials.com
222 East Huntington Drive, Suite 230
4 Monrovia, California 91016
Telephone: (626) 821-1 100
5 Fax: (626) 821-2626
6 Attorneys for Defendants
TROY WILSON and MARICLARE MALDONADO
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
11 BARBARA WILLIAMS, an individual, Case No.: C1VDS2002655
[Unlimited Jurisdiction]
12 Plaintiff,
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. ONE
14 TROY WILSON; MARICLARE Trial:
MALDONADO; and DOES 1 through 100, Date: December 11, 2023
15 Inclusive. Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: S37
16 Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
—1—
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. I
1 I.
2 ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 A. Plaintiffs Motion in Limine Is Overly Broad
4 A motion in limine must specifically address which evidence the moving party wishes to
5 exclude. Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659. “[Requestingj rulings
6 which would merely be declaratory of existing law or would not provide any meaningful
7 guidance for the parties or witnesses” is not the proper subject of a motion in limine.” Id.
8 Plaintiff BARBARA WILLIAMS (“Plaintiff’) is requesting that the Court issue an order
9 precluding Defendants TROY WILSON and MARICLARE MALDONADO (collectively,
10 “Defendants”) from publishing, referencing or admitting any document into evidence without
11 proper foundation. There are hundreds of documents in this case encompassing thousands of
12 pages. Plaintiffs request is extremely broad. Plaintiff makes no effort to define what specific
13 documents are covered by her motion in limine. Plaintiffs provides zero guidance for
14 Defendants and Defendants’ witnesses. Defendants are left to guess what specific evidence will
15 be affected by this motion in limine. Plaintiffs motion merely requests that the Court issue an
16 order affirming existing law. Plaintiffs motion in limine is improper pursuant to Kelly v. New
17 West Federal Savings. The Court should deny Plaintiffs improper motion in limine.
18 II.
19 CONCLUSION
20 Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 1.
22 DATED: December 6, 2023 MGRTY&ASSOCIATES
By
Hayden T. Trؔer
25 Attorney for ‘IJefendants
TROY WILSON and
LU
MARICLARE MALDONADO
27
28
-2-
DEFENDANTs’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. I
Document Filed Date
December 06, 2023
Case Filing Date
January 24, 2020
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
_________________________________ 1 McClaugherty & Associates ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto) Jay S. McClaugherty (State Bar No. 99063) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 Email: iay.mcc1aughertymcctrials.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Hayden T. Traver (State Bar No. 317428) 12/6/2023 3:47 PM 3 Email: hayden.traver(mcctrials.com 222 East Huntington Drive, Suite 230 4 Monrovia, California 91016 Telephone: (626) 821-1 100 5 Fax: (626) 821-2626 6 Attorneys for Defendants TROY WILSON and MARICLARE MALDONADO 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 BARBARA WILLIAMS, an individual, Case No.: C1VDS2002655 [Unlimited Jurisdiction] 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. ONE 14 TROY WILSON; MARICLARE Trial: MALDONADO; and DOES 1 through 100, Date: December 11, 2023 15 Inclusive. Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: S37 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 —1— DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. I 1 I. 2 ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 A. Plaintiffs Motion in Limine Is Overly Broad 4 A motion in limine must specifically address which evidence the moving party wishes to 5 exclude. Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659. “[Requestingj rulings 6 which would merely be declaratory of existing law or would not provide any meaningful 7 guidance for the parties or witnesses” is not the proper subject of a motion in limine.” Id. 8 Plaintiff BARBARA WILLIAMS (“Plaintiff’) is requesting that the Court issue an order 9 precluding Defendants TROY WILSON and MARICLARE MALDONADO (collectively, 10 “Defendants”) from publishing, referencing or admitting any document into evidence without 11 proper foundation. There are hundreds of documents in this case encompassing thousands of 12 pages. Plaintiffs request is extremely broad. Plaintiff makes no effort to define what specific 13 documents are covered by her motion in limine. Plaintiffs provides zero guidance for 14 Defendants and Defendants’ witnesses. Defendants are left to guess what specific evidence will 15 be affected by this motion in limine. Plaintiffs motion merely requests that the Court issue an 16 order affirming existing law. Plaintiffs motion in limine is improper pursuant to Kelly v. New 17 West Federal Savings. The Court should deny Plaintiffs improper motion in limine. 18 II. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 1. 22 DATED: December 6, 2023 MGRTY&ASSOCIATES By Hayden T. TrØ”er 25 Attorney for ‘IJefendants TROY WILSON and LU MARICLARE MALDONADO 27 28 -2- DEFENDANTs’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. I