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
Ognian Gavrilov (SBN 258583) ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
David S. Kahn (SBN 148639) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFOF. NIA
GAVRILOV & BROOKS COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
12/8/2023 12:44 PM
23 15 Capitol Avenue
Sacramento, CA 958 1 6
Telephone: (916) 504-0529
KOOOQOUI-bUJNr—t
Email: ognian@gavrilovlaw.com
Email: dkahn@gavrilovlaw.com
Jonathan M. Kashani,
(SBN 266610)
Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN M. KASHANI
2839 S. Robertson Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90034
Tel: (310) 272-7157
Fax: (310) 272-7746
Email: jonathan@kashlegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BARBARA WILLIAMS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NNNNNNNNNHr—tr—tr—Ab—Ab—Ar—tr—tr—Ab—A
BARBARA WILLIAMS, an Individual, Case N0: CIVD82002655
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF BARBARA WILLIAMS’
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
OONOKIIJ>UJNHOKOOOQOMJ>UJNHO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FIVE TO
TROY WILSON; DOES 1 TO 100, EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S DUPLICATIVE
PAIN & SUFFERING WITNESSES
Defendants.
Date: December 11, 2023
Time: 10:00 am
Dept: S37
1
PLAINTIFF BARBARA WILLIAMS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FIVE TO
EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S DUPLICATIVE PAIN & SUFFERING WITNESSES
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Barbara Williams hereby and herewith submits the
enclosed Opposition t0 Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. Five to exclude plaintiff s duplicative
pain and suffering witnesses.
KOOOQOUI-bUJNr—t
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury case involving two vehicles Which collided. Defendants now seek
to somehow limit the minimal number of experts identified to provide to the jury a picture of
plaintiff’ s problems, injuries, damages, pain, suffering, and mental anguish following this
accident. Given defendants’ position, and that 0f their experts, that this accident in essence did not
affect plaintiff, a jury must know the before and after evidence as to plaintiff. Only these
Witnesses can provide that information, in addition t0 plaintiff. Notably, defendants provide n0
details indicating that the evidence presented by these two Witnesses would be duplicative in
detail.
II. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendants seek t0 limit plaintiff s use 0f Witnesses t0 talk about her pain and suffering
NNNNNNNNNHr—tr—tr—Ab—Ab—Ar—tr—tr—Ab—A
issues, which will allow the jury t0 put into context plaintiff’s injuries and damages caused by this
accident. Given that defendants and their experts seek t0 claim nothing bad happened t0 plaintiff
when defendant driver ran into her, this evidence is directly relevant and at issue. (EV. C. § 352.)
OONOKIIJ>UJNHOKOOOQOMJ>UJNHO
More than that, two (2) witnesses in this are will not take up any undue amount of time, or
unnecessarily consume this Court’s resources. Notably, all of the defense witnesses say that
plaintiff suffered n0 problems related t0 this accident, and if the argument in the instant motion is
endorsed by this Court then defendants should be required t0 select a single expert to state this
concept and the remaining experts should be limited in this area.
Plaintiff is entitled to present her case to the jury. Plaintiff has properly and timely
identified witnesses for trial. Defendant provides n0 rationale or valid case authority as to why a
single lay Witness in this area should be allowed. In fact, defendants cite n0 authority at all in
support 0f their motion. Failure to cite t0 authority may permit the Court t0 treat the point as
2
PLAINTIFF BARBARA WILLIAMS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FIVE TO
EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S DUPLICATIVE PAIN & SUFFERING WITNESSES
Document Filed Date
December 08, 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
Ognian Gavrilov (SBN 258583) ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto) David S. Kahn (SBN 148639) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFOF. NIA GAVRILOV & BROOKS COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 12/8/2023 12:44 PM 23 15 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, CA 958 1 6 Telephone: (916) 504-0529 KOOOQOUI-bUJNr—t Email: ognian@gavrilovlaw.com Email: dkahn@gavrilovlaw.com Jonathan M. Kashani, (SBN 266610) Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN M. KASHANI 2839 S. Robertson Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 272-7157 Fax: (310) 272-7746 Email: jonathan@kashlegal.com Attorneys for Plaintiff BARBARA WILLIAMS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO NNNNNNNNNHr—tr—tr—Ab—Ab—Ar—tr—tr—Ab—A BARBARA WILLIAMS, an Individual, Case N0: CIVD82002655 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF BARBARA WILLIAMS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ OONOKIIJ>UJNHOKOOOQOMJ>UJNHO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FIVE TO TROY WILSON; DOES 1 TO 100, EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S DUPLICATIVE PAIN & SUFFERING WITNESSES Defendants. Date: December 11, 2023 Time: 10:00 am Dept: S37 1 PLAINTIFF BARBARA WILLIAMS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FIVE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S DUPLICATIVE PAIN & SUFFERING WITNESSES TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Barbara Williams hereby and herewith submits the enclosed Opposition t0 Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. Five to exclude plaintiff s duplicative pain and suffering witnesses. KOOOQOUI-bUJNr—t I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This is a personal injury case involving two vehicles Which collided. Defendants now seek to somehow limit the minimal number of experts identified to provide to the jury a picture of plaintiff’ s problems, injuries, damages, pain, suffering, and mental anguish following this accident. Given defendants’ position, and that 0f their experts, that this accident in essence did not affect plaintiff, a jury must know the before and after evidence as to plaintiff. Only these Witnesses can provide that information, in addition t0 plaintiff. Notably, defendants provide n0 details indicating that the evidence presented by these two Witnesses would be duplicative in detail. II. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Defendants seek t0 limit plaintiff s use 0f Witnesses t0 talk about her pain and suffering NNNNNNNNNHr—tr—tr—Ab—Ab—Ar—tr—tr—Ab—A issues, which will allow the jury t0 put into context plaintiff’s injuries and damages caused by this accident. Given that defendants and their experts seek t0 claim nothing bad happened t0 plaintiff when defendant driver ran into her, this evidence is directly relevant and at issue. (EV. C. § 352.) OONOKIIJ>UJNHOKOOOQOMJ>UJNHO More than that, two (2) witnesses in this are will not take up any undue amount of time, or unnecessarily consume this Court’s resources. Notably, all of the defense witnesses say that plaintiff suffered n0 problems related t0 this accident, and if the argument in the instant motion is endorsed by this Court then defendants should be required t0 select a single expert to state this concept and the remaining experts should be limited in this area. Plaintiff is entitled to present her case to the jury. Plaintiff has properly and timely identified witnesses for trial. Defendant provides n0 rationale or valid case authority as to why a single lay Witness in this area should be allowed. In fact, defendants cite n0 authority at all in support 0f their motion. Failure to cite t0 authority may permit the Court t0 treat the point as 2 PLAINTIFF BARBARA WILLIAMS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FIVE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S DUPLICATIVE PAIN & SUFFERING WITNESSES