On April 06, 2022 a
Exhibit,Appendix
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bradford Brett,
Linda Johnson-Brett,
and
A.O. Smith Corporation.,,
Avon Products, Inc.,,
Bird Incorporated,,
Brenntag North America, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Mineral Pigment Solutions, Inc., As Successor In Interest To Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.,,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
Burnham Holdings Llc,
Burnham, Llc, Individually And As Successor To Burnham Corporation,,
Carrier Corporation,,
Chanel, Inc.,,
Clinique Laboratories, Llc,,
Colgate Palmolive Company,
Compudyne Corporation, Individually And As Successor To York-Shipley,
Conopco, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Cheseborough-Ponds, Inc.,,
Coty, Inc.,,
Crane Co.,,
Crown Boiler Co.,,
Dap, Inc.,,
Ecr International, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Dunkirk, Dunkirk Boilers And Utica Boilers,,
Elizabeth Arden, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Evyan Perfumes, Inc.,,
Estee Lauder, Inc.,,
Estee Lauder International, Inc.,,
Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., F K A Dunham-Bush, Inc.,,
Friend Lumber Company Of Lowell,,
General Electric Company,,
Goulds Pumps, Inc.,,
Grinnell Llc,,
Honeywell International, Inc., F K A Allied Signal, Inc. Bendix,,
Itt Corporation, Individually, And As Successor In Interest To Bell & Gossett And Hoffman Specialty,,
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.,,
Keeler-Dorr-Oliver Boiler Company,,
Macys, Inc.,,
Mineral And Pigment Solutions, Inc., F K A Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.,,
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, A K A 3M Company,,
New Yorker Boiler Co., Inc.,,
Paramount Global F K A Viacomcbs, Inc. F K A Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, F K A Viacom Inc., Successor By Merger To Cbs Corporation, A Pennsylvania Corporation, F K A Westinghouse Electric Corporation,,
Parfums De Couer Ltd,
Pecora Corp.,,
Pfizer, Inc., Individually And As Successor To Coty Inc.,,
Revlon, Inc., Individually And As Successor In Interest To Jean Nate, Evyan Perfumes, Inc. And Enjoli, Inc.,,
Rheem Manufacturing Co., Rudd Water Heater Division,,
R.W. Beckett Corp.,,
Schneider Electric Usa, Inc., Formerly Known As Square D Company,
Slant Fin Corporation,,
Sos Products Co. Inc.,,
Spirax Sarco, Inc., Individually And As Successor To Sarco Company,,
Union Carbide Corporation,,
Weil Mclain, A Division Of The Marley Wylain Company,,
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.,,
for Torts - Asbestos
in the District Court of Monroe County.
Preview
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM INDEX NO. E2022002698
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.
Receipt # 3822317
Book Page CIVIL
Return To: No. Pages: 15
KUSH SHUKLA
1040 6th Avenue, Suite 12B Instrument: EXHIBIT(S)
New York, NY 10018
Control #: 202404121393
Index #: E2022002698
Date: 04/12/2024
JOHNSON-BRETT, LINDA Time: 2:38:14 PM
BRETT, BRADFORD
A.O. SMITH CORPORATION.,
AVON PRODUCTS, INC.,
BIRD INCORPORATED,
BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC., individually and as
successor in interest to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS,
INC., as successor in interest to WHITTAKER, CLARK &
DANIELS, INC.,
BURNHAM, LLC, individually and as successor to BURNHAM
CORPORATION,
Total Fees Paid: $0.00
Employee:
State of New York
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE
WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS
ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &
SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.
JAMIE ROMEO
MONROE COUNTY CLERK
202404121393 Index #
INDEX : E2022002698
NO. E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
EXHIBIT 17
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
21STCV23555 September 25, 2023
DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM
COSMETICS, INC.
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances
Other Appearance Notes: Counsel for Plaintiff's: Ronald J. Shingler; Counsel for Defendant's:
Bryan King; Julia Romano; Lori Mayfield; and Alexander G. Calfo;
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Final Status Conference (FOWLER-21STCV23555)
Conference is called for hearing.
Court and counsel confer as to the status of the case and trial documents.
Plaintiff shall file a dismissal as to Defendant Brenntag Specialties, Inc. forthwith.
Revised trial documents are due by 09/28/2023. USB drive is due by 10/2/2023.
The Court issues a Tentative Ruling as to the Motions in Limine. Counsel for Defendant briefly
argues Plaintiff's motion in limine no. 4. Counsel for Plaintiff briefly argues Defendant's motion
in limine no. 1. All counsel submit and the Court adopts the Tentative Ruling as the Final Court
Order and follows:
ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1
Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of insurance coverage, settlements or other collateral source
benefits. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, the motion is deemed made and granted. Defendants
did not show good cause to depart from the order. Therefore the motion is granted, except as to
evidence of insurance to establish the actual amount paid of any medical bill.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2
Minute Order Page 1 of 9
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
21STCV23555 September 25, 2023
DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM
COSMETICS, INC.
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None
Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of or reference to two 2013 orders precluding Plaintiffs’
expert Barry Horn from testifying as irrelevant and prejudicial. The 2013 orders are more
prejudicial than probative and will consume an undue amount of time explaining the context of
those orders. Therefore, the motion is granted. However, if Horn testifies that his opinions have
never been excluded, testifies his opinions have always been accepted, or otherwise opens the
door, the evidence may be admissible.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3
Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence or comments about any speculative genetic cause of
mesothelioma. This motion is too vague. Plaintiffs do not identify specific testimony to be
excluded. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion for exclusion of speculative evidence is
deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Plaintiffs did
not show good cause to depart from this order. The motion is denied without prejudice to
objection at trial.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4
Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of a procedure called talc pleurodesis as not relevant to
causation and irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing to the jury. If Plaintiff had this procedure, the
motion is denied without prejudice to an objection at trial. If she did not have this procedure, the
motion is granted as the evidence would require an undue amount of trial time and confusing
medical evidence explaining the purposes of the procedure and when and how it is used.
Plaintiffs’ MIL Nos. 5, 6
Plaintiffs move to exclude irrelevant definitions of asbestos and arguments about cleavage
fragments. Plaintiffs contend Defendants have no evidence that different types of asbestos or
cleavage fragments make a difference in causing disease. Plaintiffs say OSHA determined there
is no difference in risk based on fibers and cleavage fragments. Defendants argue Plaintiffs are
misrepresenting how asbestos is defined and Plaintiffs’ own experts conclusions. This is a
disputed issue for trial. The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 1
Defendant Charles B. Chrystal Company moves to exclude evidence that its product contained
asbestos because Plaintiffs have no admissible evidence of this. This is a disguised motion for
Minute Order Page 2 of 9
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
21STCV23555 September 25, 2023
DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM
COSMETICS, INC.
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None
summary judgment and a disputed issue for the jury. The motion is denied.
Defendants’ MIL No. 1
Defendant Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude evidence about diseases caused by talc other
than mesothelioma, such as ovarian cancer. This case is not about ovarian cancer or diseases
other than mesothelioma. The evidence, especially about ovarian cancer, would be more
prejudicial than probative, would confuse the jury, and would consume an undue amount of time
in a trial that is already too long. The motion is granted.
Defendants’ MIL No. 2
Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude references to other lawsuits involving J&J companies. This
motion is too vague. For example, if Defendant disputes that it had knowledge about the hazards
of asbestos, claims about injury from asbestos could be relevant to knowledge. Therefore some
reference to prior cases may be relevant. However, detailed evidence about the prior claims and
cases will be more prejudicial than probative, confusing, and a waste of time. It will be up to the
trial court to decide how much is too much.
To the extent the motion seeks to exclude settlements, judgments and verdicts from other
litigations, the motion is deemed made and granted pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO. Plaintiffs
did not show good cause to depart from that order.
Therefore, the motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 2
Charles B. Chrystal moves to exclude evidence that Plaintiff used Avon products except during
1993 to 1997. This motion is too vague. Also, Plaintiff alleges she used Avon products from the
1970s to 2000. Therefore, it is not possible to exclude time periods upon which she basis her
claims. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 3
Defendant Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude evidence that it discontinued sales of talc-based
baby powder in 2020 as irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and confusing. If Defendant disputes that
the baby powder products contained asbestos, the discontinuation of the sales could be relevant
Minute Order Page 3 of 9
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
21STCV23555 September 25, 2023
DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM
COSMETICS, INC.
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None
to proving that defect. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 4
Defendant Johnson & Johnson seeks to exclude all media reports about talc litigation including
three Reuters articles dated December 14, 2018, April 9, 2019, and December 3, 2019, as lacking
foundation, hearsay, irrelevant and prejudicial.
The motion to exclude all media reports is too vague.
Defendant argues the December 14, 2018 article is hearsay, misleading and prejudicial. Plaintiffs
argue it is an authorized statement by Defendant and is therefore admissible under Evidence
Code sections 1220 and 1222. There are at least two problems with this argument. First, the vast
majority of the 14-page article does not contain quotations attributed to Defendant’s authorized
personnel. Second, the statements by the reporter who wrote the article that a representative of
Defendant made a particular comment are hearsay. So even if the Defendant made authorized
admissions to the reporter, the reporter’s statements in the article about those admissions are
hearsay. In other words, there are two levels of hearsay involved.
The article is also prejudicial because it contains personal stories about third parties getting sick,
allegedly from Defendant’s products, as well as details about other litigations, including cases
about ovarian cancer. Details about third parties’ injuries and their allegations about Defendant
are not relevant here. The article will be confusing to the jury and consume an undue amount of
time as Defendant seeks to refute all 14 pages of it at trial.
The article contains a tremendous amount of information based on out-of-court sources that are
themselves hearsay. In other words, it contains multiple levels of hearsay.
Plaintiffs argues the article is evidence that Defendant had notice of the hazards of its talcum
powder products. The article reports on several lawsuits against Defendant concerning its talcum
powder. Defendant had notice of these lawsuits well before the article was published, for
example by being served with the lawsuits and participating in the lawsuits. If the fact that
Defendant was previously sued about its talcum powder is relevant and not prejudicial, there are
much less prejudicial ways to establish that.
Plaintiffs argue the December 14, 2018 article is admissible because Defendant used other media
reports in other cases as evidence. That is irrelevant to whether the December 14, 2018 article is
Minute Order Page 4 of 9
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
21STCV23555 September 25, 2023
DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM
COSMETICS, INC.
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None
admissible in this case. Simply because different evidence was admitted in other cases does not
mean this particular article should be admitted here.
Defendant argues the April 9, 2019 and December 3, 2019 articles also are hearsay, misleading,
and prejudicial. Plaintiffs do not address these two articles in their opposition. The April 9, 2019
article discusses Defendant’s marketing campaigns, numerous ovarian cancer and mesothelioma
lawsuits against Defendant, and the events in other lawsuits against the company. These topics
are irrelevant in this litigation, would be unduly prejudicial, and would consume too much trial
time. The December 3, 2019 article discusses an FDA symposium of asbestos in talc. Plaintiffs
did not show why this article is relevant. Also, both articles are hearsay, and Plaintiffs did not
show an exception to the hearsay rule.
The motion is granted as to the three Reuters articles and otherwise denied without prejudice to
objections at trial.
The moving party is to give notice.
Defendants’ MIL No. 5
Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude all references to the IWGACP formed in 2018 and its
2020-2022 recommendations and papers as irrelevant, misleading, and hearsay. If an expert
establishes that this is the type of background information relied upon by experts, the evidence
may be relevant and admissible even if hearsay. Defendant can then cross-examine the expert on
the fact that the work is only preliminary. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at
trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 6
Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude evidence about foreign governmental investigations and
proceedings into talcum powder as irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing and time-consuming.
Plaintiffs did not show that any defendant was aware of a foreign investigation or proceeding
into talcum powder such that this information is relevant to notice, or that the foreign
investigation or proceeding gave the defendant notice of something it was not previously aware
of. Allowing that evidence will consume an undue amount of trial time exploring the reasons for
the foreign investigations. The evidence would have little probative value because foreign
investigations do not result in regulations or law in the United States and would be confusing to
the jury. The motion is granted.
Minute Order Page 5 of 9
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
21STCV23555 September 25, 2023
DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM
COSMETICS, INC.
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None
Defendants’ MIL No. 7
Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude statements that litigation forced Defendant to make public
the story of asbestos in cosmetic talc. Plaintiffs state they need to discuss other litigations against
Defendant to show that Defendant has been concealing the truth.
Except as discussed above, evidence of other lawsuits against Defendant regarding talc will be
time consuming and prejudicial. It will result in spending time at trial about how and why
Defendant acted the way it did in the other lawsuits. This will waste time and result in a re-
litigation of the previous lawsuits. Plaintiffs can present evidence of concealment without
delving into the other lawsuits. The motion is granted.
Defendants’ MIL No. 8
Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude an article titled “Asbestos in Commercial Talcum Powder
as a Cause of Mesothelioma in Women” by Gordon, Millette, and Fitzgerald as hearsay, based
on improper data, and unreliable.
An expert may rely on hearsay and tell the jury in general terms that he or she did so. If an expert
testifying in this case establishes that this article is the type of background information relied
upon by experts in the field, the evidence may be relevant and admissible even if hearsay.
(People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16, 22.) Defendant did not show that the article is based
on data lacking foundation or an unreliable method. Defendant can cross-examine any expert
who relies on this article about these points.
The motion is granted in part as to the contents of the article unless an expert establishes a basis
for its admissibility. Otherwise the motion denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 9
Johnson & Johnson seeks to exclude an article written by Dr. Jacqueline Moline.
The articles is hearsay, but an expert can rely on hearsay and tell the jury generally that he or she
relied on the hearsay. The expert cannot tell the jury the contents of the hearsay unless the expert
first establishes that the paper is the type of general background information relied upon by
experts in the field or the document is otherwise admissible. That Moline wrote the article as part
Minute Order Page 6 of 9
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
21STCV23555 September 25, 2023
DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM
COSMETICS, INC.
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None
of litigation goes to the author’s potential bias and the weight for the jury to give to the article.
Defendant argues the article is unreliable, ignores other cases, and is selective about the
information it uses. If some expert in this case testifies that he or she relied on the article,
Defendants can cross-examine the expert about the other cases the article ignres. This issue goes
to the weight to be given the article and opinions based on the article. That the article supposedly
relied on false information is also grounds for cross-examination.
Defendant argues no expert can reasonably rely on the article. That cannot be determined until
the expert testifies and explains why the expert believes the article is reliable.
Defendant argues Moline refuses to answer questions about her article. However, Defendant did
not show it subpoenaed Moline for a deposition and she refused to answer questions in this case.
If she is a witness in this trial and refuses to answer questions at trial, Defendant can seek object
or seek to have her testimony stricken at that time.
The motion is granted in part as to the specific contents of the article unless an expert establishes
a basis for the admissibility of the contents at trial. Otherwise the motion is denied without
prejudice to objections at trial.
The moving party is to give notice.
Defendants’ MIL No. 10
Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude all reference to a paper authored by Teresa Emory, John
Maddox, and Richard Kradin. The paper is hearsay, but an expert can rely on hearsay and tell the
jury generally about the hearsay. The expert cannot tell the jury the contents of the hearsay
unless the expert first establishes that the paper is the type of general background information
relied upon by experts in the field or is otherwise admissible.
Defendant argues the paper should be excluded because the authors regularly testify for plaintiffs
in talc cases. That may be a basis to argue to the jury that they should view the article with
suspicion and give it no weight, but it is not a legal ground for excluding expert testimony (if that
were the law, many experts would automatically be excluded).
Defendant argues that the paper does not disclose the source of its data and the authors refuse to
turn over their data. However, Plaintiffs do not state that they sought the data in discovery in this
Minute Order Page 7 of 9
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
21STCV23555 September 25, 2023
DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM
COSMETICS, INC.
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None
case.
Defendant argues the paper contains false, one-sided, cherry-picked data. That is grounds for
cross-examination and goes to the weight the jury should give the article.
The motion is granted in part as to the specific contents of the paper unless an expert establishes
a basis for the admissibility of the contents. Otherwise the motion denied without prejudice to
objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 11
Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude evidence that Alice Blount tested Defendant’s talc and
found asbestos because she is not an expert in this case and her conclusions are unreliable.
Written reports and out-of-court statements by Blount about her testing of talc and the results are
hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter asserted. An expert designated and testifying in this
case cannot tell the jury the contents of that hearsay unless the expert first establishes that the
written or oral statements by Blount are the type of general background information relied upon
by experts in the field or the statements are otherwise admissible. However, an expert may rely
on hearsay and tell the jury that he or she relied on the hearsay.
Whether Blount’s work is reliable such that other experts in the field generally rely upon it as
accurate must be established by a testifying expert in this case first before Blount’s statements
are potentially admissible.
Plaintiffs argue Blount’s deposition testimony from a prior case is admissible. Prior deposition
testimony is to be handled pursuant to the procedures set forth in the July 8, 2022 CMO.
The motion is granted in part as to written and oral statements (other than prior deposition
testimony, which is handled pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO) by Blount unless an expert
establishes a basis for the admissibility of those statements at trial. Otherwise the motion is
denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
The moving party is to give notice.
Defendants’ MIL No. 12
Minute Order Page 8 of 9
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
21STCV23555 September 25, 2023
DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM
COSMETICS, INC.
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None
This motion in limine seeks an order that witnesses, documents and demonstratives be disclosed.
This is not a proper motion in limine. The trial court will have its own rules for trial procedure.
Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.
Defendants’ MIL No. 13
Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude references to the LTL Management bankruptcy
proceedings. The bankruptcy is irrelevant and will create time-consuming sideshow. The motion
is granted.
The moving party is to give notice.
On the Court's own motion, the Final Status Conference (FOWLER-21STCV23555) scheduled
for 09/25/2023 is continued to 10/02/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at Spring Street
Courthouse for case 21STCV23555.
Notice is deemed waived.
A copy of this minute order will append to the following coordinated case under JCCP4674:
21STCV23555.
Minute Order Page 9 of 9
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
BC677764 February 15, 2019
ROBERT BLINKINSOP ET AL VS ALBERTSONS 9:00 AM
COMPANIES INC ET AL
Judge: Honorable David S. Cunningham CSR: Aurora D. Bowser, No. 12801
Judicial Assistant: M. Cervantes ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. McKinney Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances
Other Appearance Notes: For Plaintiff: Mark D. Bratt, Robert Green; For Defendant: Bruce
Hurley; Nicole R. Fukuoka, Julia Romano
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Final Status Conference (Re: Blinkinsop-BC677764)
The matter is called for hearing.
Pursuant to Government Code sections 68086, 70044, and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956,
Aurora D. Bowser, CSR No. 12801, certified shorthand reporter is appointed as an official Court
reporter pro tempore in these proceedings, and is ordered to comply with the terms of the Court
Reporter Agreement. The Order is has been previously signed and is on file.
The Final Status Conference (Re: Blinkinsop-BC677764) scheduled for 02/15/2019 is 'Held' for
case BC677764.
Plaintiff's motion in Limine No. 1 to preclude any reference to Serpentine (or Chrysotile) as
California's State Rock is resolved by stipulation of the parties.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude any reference to the Garlock Bankruptcy Order and
to exclude any reference to Plaintiff's experts as "Junk Science" is reserved. No reference is to be
made as to the Garlock bankruptcy order nor as to plaintiff's experts as "junk science" during
voir dire and in opening statements.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude evidence of, or reference to any voluntary or
involuntary dismissals or orders of Defendants from other lawsuits is resolved by stipulation of
the parties.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude evidence of, or reference to Plaintiff's expert Dr.
Ronald Gordon's alleged connections to organized crime, related cooperation with state and
Minute Order Page 1 of 4
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
BC677764 February 15, 2019
ROBERT BLINKINSOP ET AL VS ALBERTSONS 9:00 AM
COMPANIES INC ET AL
Judge: Honorable David S. Cunningham CSR: Aurora D. Bowser, No. 12801
Judicial Assistant: M. Cervantes ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. McKinney Deputy Sheriff: None
federal agencies, and participation in witness protections is granted.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 5 to exclude evidence of, or reference to Plaintiffs' expert Sean
Fitzgerald, P.G.'s joke during a conference is withdrawn.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude reference to workplace standards as proxy for "safe
levels" of exposure to consumer products in the home is argued and granted in part and denied in
part. Defendants should not reference work place standards.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude references and evidence regarding the FDA's
designation of talc in food as "generally regarded as safe" is argued and granted.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 8 to exclude any reference, mention, or argument by Defendants
regarding Defendant Attorneys' and witnesses' personal ongoing use of talcum products is
withdrawn.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 9 to preclude referring to Plaintiffs' attorneys as "Asbestos
Lawyers" is granted.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 10 to exclude any argument that talc is safe is denied.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 11 to exclude personal-use testimony by Defendants' witnesses
is argued and denied. Cannot be used in voir dire, opening statements. Cannot use Mr. Hopkins
to argue his use or family's use to say that that proves it is safe. Can be used in rebuttal to all
allegations as to conscious disregard to public safety. Can be used in punitive damages phase.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 14 to exclude, as an evidentiary sanction, any TEM testing
reports for any TEM grids that were destroyed by Defendants is withdrawn.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 15 to exclude evidence of, or reference to settlements obtained
in this matter is resolved by stipulation of the parties.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 16 to exclude evidence of, or reference to Defendants sued but
not present at trial is granted as modified. Plaintiff's complaint cannot be used.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 17 to exclude evidence of, or reference to other exposures to
orders or rulings issued by other courts excluding or limiting the testimony of any of Plaintiffs'
Minute Order Page 2 of 4
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
BC677764 February 15, 2019
ROBERT BLINKINSOP ET AL VS ALBERTSONS 9:00 AM
COMPANIES INC ET AL
Judge: Honorable David S. Cunningham CSR: Aurora D. Bowser, No. 12801
Judicial Assistant: M. Cervantes ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. McKinney Deputy Sheriff: None
expert witnesses in this case is resolved by stipulation of the parties.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 18 to exclude evidence of, or reference to the apparent lack of
asbestos and/or asbestiform fibers in other companies' talc products or raw/mined talc sources
that were not utilized by Defendants is deferred.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 19 to exclude Defendants from referencing Dr. Longo's
marriage to a Plaintiff's attorney is denied.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 22 to exclude statements that users of Johnson's Baby Powder
do not develop mesothelioma is argued and denied.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 23 to exclude Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar's speculation regarding
ionizing radiation; assumed difference between cosmetic talc and industrial talc, and
epidemiology studies of unrelated talc mines is argued and reserved.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 24 to exclude expert opinions by Dr. Richard Attanoos, MBBS,
is argued and denied.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 25 to exclude opinions of Brian Daly based on speculation and
pseudoscience: Asbestos Content of Construction Material and Exposure Levels from Talc is
moot.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 26 to preclude evidence regarding asbestos "cleavage
fragments," including their minerological definition and testimony by Defendants' experts
Matthew Sanchez regarding them and Brooke Mossman regarding their ability to cause disease
is argued and reserved pending a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code Section 402.
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 27 to preclude evidence of, reference to, and/or argument about
foundationless and speculative alternative exposure theories is argued and denied.
Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude evidence regarding other alleged defects and
diseases, including ovarian cancer is granted.
Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude article entitled "Asbestos in Commercial Talcum
Powder as a Cause of Mesothelioma in Women" and any references thereto is granted in part and
denied in part. The article should not be admitted into evidence.
Minute Order Page 3 of 4
202404121393 IndexNO.
INDEX #: E2022002698
E2022002698
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15
BC677764 February 15, 2019
ROBERT BLINKINSOP ET AL VS ALBERTSONS 9:00 AM
COMPANIES INC ET AL
Judge: Honorable David S. Cunningham CSR: Aurora D. Bowser, No. 12801
Judicial Assistant: M. Cervantes ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. McKinney Deputy Sheriff: None
Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude any reference to other lawsuits involving
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. Family of Companies and/or Defendants is granted in part.
May be brought up for impeachment purposes but not in Plaintiffs' case-in-chief.
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude reference to
the financial condition of Defendant's parent company is deferred.
Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 5 for 48-hour pre-disclosure of witnesses and 48-hour pre-
disclosure of documents is deferred.
Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6 to preclude reference to the absence of a corporate
representative at trial is deferred.
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude all evidence
and testimony that Dr. Alice Blount tested JJCI products is argued and denied.
Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8 to exclude references to media report about talc litigation is
granted.
Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 9 to exclude foreign investigations and proceedings is
granted.
Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 13 to exclude opinions and testimony from Pliantiffs' expert,
Dr. William Longo -- or alternatively, for an Evidence Code Section 402 hearing. The Court will
hold a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code Section 402.
Final Status Conference is continued to 02/19/2019 at 9:00 AM in Department 15.
A copy of this minute order will append to the following coordinated case under JCCP4674:
BC677764.
Minute Order Page 4 of 4
Preview
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM INDEX NO. E2022002698 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT. Receipt # 3822317 Book Page CIVIL Return To: No. Pages: 15 KUSH SHUKLA 1040 6th Avenue, Suite 12B Instrument: EXHIBIT(S) New York, NY 10018 Control #: 202404121393 Index #: E2022002698 Date: 04/12/2024 JOHNSON-BRETT, LINDA Time: 2:38:14 PM BRETT, BRADFORD A.O. SMITH CORPORATION., AVON PRODUCTS, INC., BIRD INCORPORATED, BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., as successor in interest to WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC., BURNHAM, LLC, individually and as successor to BURNHAM CORPORATION, Total Fees Paid: $0.00 Employee: State of New York MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) & SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE. JAMIE ROMEO MONROE COUNTY CLERK 202404121393 Index # INDEX : E2022002698 NO. E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 EXHIBIT 17 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 21STCV23555 September 25, 2023 DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM COSMETICS, INC. Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): No Appearances Other Appearance Notes: Counsel for Plaintiff's: Ronald J. Shingler; Counsel for Defendant's: Bryan King; Julia Romano; Lori Mayfield; and Alexander G. Calfo; NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Final Status Conference (FOWLER-21STCV23555) Conference is called for hearing. Court and counsel confer as to the status of the case and trial documents. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal as to Defendant Brenntag Specialties, Inc. forthwith. Revised trial documents are due by 09/28/2023. USB drive is due by 10/2/2023. The Court issues a Tentative Ruling as to the Motions in Limine. Counsel for Defendant briefly argues Plaintiff's motion in limine no. 4. Counsel for Plaintiff briefly argues Defendant's motion in limine no. 1. All counsel submit and the Court adopts the Tentative Ruling as the Final Court Order and follows: ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1 Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of insurance coverage, settlements or other collateral source benefits. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, the motion is deemed made and granted. Defendants did not show good cause to depart from the order. Therefore the motion is granted, except as to evidence of insurance to establish the actual amount paid of any medical bill. Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2 Minute Order Page 1 of 9 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 21STCV23555 September 25, 2023 DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM COSMETICS, INC. Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of or reference to two 2013 orders precluding Plaintiffs’ expert Barry Horn from testifying as irrelevant and prejudicial. The 2013 orders are more prejudicial than probative and will consume an undue amount of time explaining the context of those orders. Therefore, the motion is granted. However, if Horn testifies that his opinions have never been excluded, testifies his opinions have always been accepted, or otherwise opens the door, the evidence may be admissible. Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3 Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence or comments about any speculative genetic cause of mesothelioma. This motion is too vague. Plaintiffs do not identify specific testimony to be excluded. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion for exclusion of speculative evidence is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order. The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial. Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4 Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of a procedure called talc pleurodesis as not relevant to causation and irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing to the jury. If Plaintiff had this procedure, the motion is denied without prejudice to an objection at trial. If she did not have this procedure, the motion is granted as the evidence would require an undue amount of trial time and confusing medical evidence explaining the purposes of the procedure and when and how it is used. Plaintiffs’ MIL Nos. 5, 6 Plaintiffs move to exclude irrelevant definitions of asbestos and arguments about cleavage fragments. Plaintiffs contend Defendants have no evidence that different types of asbestos or cleavage fragments make a difference in causing disease. Plaintiffs say OSHA determined there is no difference in risk based on fibers and cleavage fragments. Defendants argue Plaintiffs are misrepresenting how asbestos is defined and Plaintiffs’ own experts conclusions. This is a disputed issue for trial. The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial. Defendants’ MIL No. 1 Defendant Charles B. Chrystal Company moves to exclude evidence that its product contained asbestos because Plaintiffs have no admissible evidence of this. This is a disguised motion for Minute Order Page 2 of 9 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 21STCV23555 September 25, 2023 DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM COSMETICS, INC. Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None summary judgment and a disputed issue for the jury. The motion is denied. Defendants’ MIL No. 1 Defendant Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude evidence about diseases caused by talc other than mesothelioma, such as ovarian cancer. This case is not about ovarian cancer or diseases other than mesothelioma. The evidence, especially about ovarian cancer, would be more prejudicial than probative, would confuse the jury, and would consume an undue amount of time in a trial that is already too long. The motion is granted. Defendants’ MIL No. 2 Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude references to other lawsuits involving J&J companies. This motion is too vague. For example, if Defendant disputes that it had knowledge about the hazards of asbestos, claims about injury from asbestos could be relevant to knowledge. Therefore some reference to prior cases may be relevant. However, detailed evidence about the prior claims and cases will be more prejudicial than probative, confusing, and a waste of time. It will be up to the trial court to decide how much is too much. To the extent the motion seeks to exclude settlements, judgments and verdicts from other litigations, the motion is deemed made and granted pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO. Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from that order. Therefore, the motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendants’ MIL No. 2 Charles B. Chrystal moves to exclude evidence that Plaintiff used Avon products except during 1993 to 1997. This motion is too vague. Also, Plaintiff alleges she used Avon products from the 1970s to 2000. Therefore, it is not possible to exclude time periods upon which she basis her claims. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendants’ MIL No. 3 Defendant Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude evidence that it discontinued sales of talc-based baby powder in 2020 as irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and confusing. If Defendant disputes that the baby powder products contained asbestos, the discontinuation of the sales could be relevant Minute Order Page 3 of 9 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 21STCV23555 September 25, 2023 DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM COSMETICS, INC. Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None to proving that defect. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendants’ MIL No. 4 Defendant Johnson & Johnson seeks to exclude all media reports about talc litigation including three Reuters articles dated December 14, 2018, April 9, 2019, and December 3, 2019, as lacking foundation, hearsay, irrelevant and prejudicial. The motion to exclude all media reports is too vague. Defendant argues the December 14, 2018 article is hearsay, misleading and prejudicial. Plaintiffs argue it is an authorized statement by Defendant and is therefore admissible under Evidence Code sections 1220 and 1222. There are at least two problems with this argument. First, the vast majority of the 14-page article does not contain quotations attributed to Defendant’s authorized personnel. Second, the statements by the reporter who wrote the article that a representative of Defendant made a particular comment are hearsay. So even if the Defendant made authorized admissions to the reporter, the reporter’s statements in the article about those admissions are hearsay. In other words, there are two levels of hearsay involved. The article is also prejudicial because it contains personal stories about third parties getting sick, allegedly from Defendant’s products, as well as details about other litigations, including cases about ovarian cancer. Details about third parties’ injuries and their allegations about Defendant are not relevant here. The article will be confusing to the jury and consume an undue amount of time as Defendant seeks to refute all 14 pages of it at trial. The article contains a tremendous amount of information based on out-of-court sources that are themselves hearsay. In other words, it contains multiple levels of hearsay. Plaintiffs argues the article is evidence that Defendant had notice of the hazards of its talcum powder products. The article reports on several lawsuits against Defendant concerning its talcum powder. Defendant had notice of these lawsuits well before the article was published, for example by being served with the lawsuits and participating in the lawsuits. If the fact that Defendant was previously sued about its talcum powder is relevant and not prejudicial, there are much less prejudicial ways to establish that. Plaintiffs argue the December 14, 2018 article is admissible because Defendant used other media reports in other cases as evidence. That is irrelevant to whether the December 14, 2018 article is Minute Order Page 4 of 9 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 21STCV23555 September 25, 2023 DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM COSMETICS, INC. Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None admissible in this case. Simply because different evidence was admitted in other cases does not mean this particular article should be admitted here. Defendant argues the April 9, 2019 and December 3, 2019 articles also are hearsay, misleading, and prejudicial. Plaintiffs do not address these two articles in their opposition. The April 9, 2019 article discusses Defendant’s marketing campaigns, numerous ovarian cancer and mesothelioma lawsuits against Defendant, and the events in other lawsuits against the company. These topics are irrelevant in this litigation, would be unduly prejudicial, and would consume too much trial time. The December 3, 2019 article discusses an FDA symposium of asbestos in talc. Plaintiffs did not show why this article is relevant. Also, both articles are hearsay, and Plaintiffs did not show an exception to the hearsay rule. The motion is granted as to the three Reuters articles and otherwise denied without prejudice to objections at trial. The moving party is to give notice. Defendants’ MIL No. 5 Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude all references to the IWGACP formed in 2018 and its 2020-2022 recommendations and papers as irrelevant, misleading, and hearsay. If an expert establishes that this is the type of background information relied upon by experts, the evidence may be relevant and admissible even if hearsay. Defendant can then cross-examine the expert on the fact that the work is only preliminary. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendants’ MIL No. 6 Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude evidence about foreign governmental investigations and proceedings into talcum powder as irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing and time-consuming. Plaintiffs did not show that any defendant was aware of a foreign investigation or proceeding into talcum powder such that this information is relevant to notice, or that the foreign investigation or proceeding gave the defendant notice of something it was not previously aware of. Allowing that evidence will consume an undue amount of trial time exploring the reasons for the foreign investigations. The evidence would have little probative value because foreign investigations do not result in regulations or law in the United States and would be confusing to the jury. The motion is granted. Minute Order Page 5 of 9 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 21STCV23555 September 25, 2023 DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM COSMETICS, INC. Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None Defendants’ MIL No. 7 Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude statements that litigation forced Defendant to make public the story of asbestos in cosmetic talc. Plaintiffs state they need to discuss other litigations against Defendant to show that Defendant has been concealing the truth. Except as discussed above, evidence of other lawsuits against Defendant regarding talc will be time consuming and prejudicial. It will result in spending time at trial about how and why Defendant acted the way it did in the other lawsuits. This will waste time and result in a re- litigation of the previous lawsuits. Plaintiffs can present evidence of concealment without delving into the other lawsuits. The motion is granted. Defendants’ MIL No. 8 Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude an article titled “Asbestos in Commercial Talcum Powder as a Cause of Mesothelioma in Women” by Gordon, Millette, and Fitzgerald as hearsay, based on improper data, and unreliable. An expert may rely on hearsay and tell the jury in general terms that he or she did so. If an expert testifying in this case establishes that this article is the type of background information relied upon by experts in the field, the evidence may be relevant and admissible even if hearsay. (People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16, 22.) Defendant did not show that the article is based on data lacking foundation or an unreliable method. Defendant can cross-examine any expert who relies on this article about these points. The motion is granted in part as to the contents of the article unless an expert establishes a basis for its admissibility. Otherwise the motion denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendants’ MIL No. 9 Johnson & Johnson seeks to exclude an article written by Dr. Jacqueline Moline. The articles is hearsay, but an expert can rely on hearsay and tell the jury generally that he or she relied on the hearsay. The expert cannot tell the jury the contents of the hearsay unless the expert first establishes that the paper is the type of general background information relied upon by experts in the field or the document is otherwise admissible. That Moline wrote the article as part Minute Order Page 6 of 9 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 21STCV23555 September 25, 2023 DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM COSMETICS, INC. Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None of litigation goes to the author’s potential bias and the weight for the jury to give to the article. Defendant argues the article is unreliable, ignores other cases, and is selective about the information it uses. If some expert in this case testifies that he or she relied on the article, Defendants can cross-examine the expert about the other cases the article ignres. This issue goes to the weight to be given the article and opinions based on the article. That the article supposedly relied on false information is also grounds for cross-examination. Defendant argues no expert can reasonably rely on the article. That cannot be determined until the expert testifies and explains why the expert believes the article is reliable. Defendant argues Moline refuses to answer questions about her article. However, Defendant did not show it subpoenaed Moline for a deposition and she refused to answer questions in this case. If she is a witness in this trial and refuses to answer questions at trial, Defendant can seek object or seek to have her testimony stricken at that time. The motion is granted in part as to the specific contents of the article unless an expert establishes a basis for the admissibility of the contents at trial. Otherwise the motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. The moving party is to give notice. Defendants’ MIL No. 10 Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude all reference to a paper authored by Teresa Emory, John Maddox, and Richard Kradin. The paper is hearsay, but an expert can rely on hearsay and tell the jury generally about the hearsay. The expert cannot tell the jury the contents of the hearsay unless the expert first establishes that the paper is the type of general background information relied upon by experts in the field or is otherwise admissible. Defendant argues the paper should be excluded because the authors regularly testify for plaintiffs in talc cases. That may be a basis to argue to the jury that they should view the article with suspicion and give it no weight, but it is not a legal ground for excluding expert testimony (if that were the law, many experts would automatically be excluded). Defendant argues that the paper does not disclose the source of its data and the authors refuse to turn over their data. However, Plaintiffs do not state that they sought the data in discovery in this Minute Order Page 7 of 9 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 21STCV23555 September 25, 2023 DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM COSMETICS, INC. Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None case. Defendant argues the paper contains false, one-sided, cherry-picked data. That is grounds for cross-examination and goes to the weight the jury should give the article. The motion is granted in part as to the specific contents of the paper unless an expert establishes a basis for the admissibility of the contents. Otherwise the motion denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendants’ MIL No. 11 Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude evidence that Alice Blount tested Defendant’s talc and found asbestos because she is not an expert in this case and her conclusions are unreliable. Written reports and out-of-court statements by Blount about her testing of talc and the results are hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter asserted. An expert designated and testifying in this case cannot tell the jury the contents of that hearsay unless the expert first establishes that the written or oral statements by Blount are the type of general background information relied upon by experts in the field or the statements are otherwise admissible. However, an expert may rely on hearsay and tell the jury that he or she relied on the hearsay. Whether Blount’s work is reliable such that other experts in the field generally rely upon it as accurate must be established by a testifying expert in this case first before Blount’s statements are potentially admissible. Plaintiffs argue Blount’s deposition testimony from a prior case is admissible. Prior deposition testimony is to be handled pursuant to the procedures set forth in the July 8, 2022 CMO. The motion is granted in part as to written and oral statements (other than prior deposition testimony, which is handled pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO) by Blount unless an expert establishes a basis for the admissibility of those statements at trial. Otherwise the motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. The moving party is to give notice. Defendants’ MIL No. 12 Minute Order Page 8 of 9 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 21STCV23555 September 25, 2023 DIANE H. FOWLER, et al. vs MERLE NORMAN 9:00 AM COSMETICS, INC. Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: P. Herrera ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: M. Torres Deputy Sheriff: None This motion in limine seeks an order that witnesses, documents and demonstratives be disclosed. This is not a proper motion in limine. The trial court will have its own rules for trial procedure. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice. Defendants’ MIL No. 13 Johnson & Johnson moves to exclude references to the LTL Management bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy is irrelevant and will create time-consuming sideshow. The motion is granted. The moving party is to give notice. On the Court's own motion, the Final Status Conference (FOWLER-21STCV23555) scheduled for 09/25/2023 is continued to 10/02/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 15 at Spring Street Courthouse for case 21STCV23555. Notice is deemed waived. A copy of this minute order will append to the following coordinated case under JCCP4674: 21STCV23555. Minute Order Page 9 of 9 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 BC677764 February 15, 2019 ROBERT BLINKINSOP ET AL VS ALBERTSONS 9:00 AM COMPANIES INC ET AL Judge: Honorable David S. Cunningham CSR: Aurora D. Bowser, No. 12801 Judicial Assistant: M. Cervantes ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: D. McKinney Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): No Appearances Other Appearance Notes: For Plaintiff: Mark D. Bratt, Robert Green; For Defendant: Bruce Hurley; Nicole R. Fukuoka, Julia Romano NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Final Status Conference (Re: Blinkinsop-BC677764) The matter is called for hearing. Pursuant to Government Code sections 68086, 70044, and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956, Aurora D. Bowser, CSR No. 12801, certified shorthand reporter is appointed as an official Court reporter pro tempore in these proceedings, and is ordered to comply with the terms of the Court Reporter Agreement. The Order is has been previously signed and is on file. The Final Status Conference (Re: Blinkinsop-BC677764) scheduled for 02/15/2019 is 'Held' for case BC677764. Plaintiff's motion in Limine No. 1 to preclude any reference to Serpentine (or Chrysotile) as California's State Rock is resolved by stipulation of the parties. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude any reference to the Garlock Bankruptcy Order and to exclude any reference to Plaintiff's experts as "Junk Science" is reserved. No reference is to be made as to the Garlock bankruptcy order nor as to plaintiff's experts as "junk science" during voir dire and in opening statements. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude evidence of, or reference to any voluntary or involuntary dismissals or orders of Defendants from other lawsuits is resolved by stipulation of the parties. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude evidence of, or reference to Plaintiff's expert Dr. Ronald Gordon's alleged connections to organized crime, related cooperation with state and Minute Order Page 1 of 4 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 BC677764 February 15, 2019 ROBERT BLINKINSOP ET AL VS ALBERTSONS 9:00 AM COMPANIES INC ET AL Judge: Honorable David S. Cunningham CSR: Aurora D. Bowser, No. 12801 Judicial Assistant: M. Cervantes ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: D. McKinney Deputy Sheriff: None federal agencies, and participation in witness protections is granted. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 5 to exclude evidence of, or reference to Plaintiffs' expert Sean Fitzgerald, P.G.'s joke during a conference is withdrawn. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude reference to workplace standards as proxy for "safe levels" of exposure to consumer products in the home is argued and granted in part and denied in part. Defendants should not reference work place standards. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude references and evidence regarding the FDA's designation of talc in food as "generally regarded as safe" is argued and granted. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 8 to exclude any reference, mention, or argument by Defendants regarding Defendant Attorneys' and witnesses' personal ongoing use of talcum products is withdrawn. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 9 to preclude referring to Plaintiffs' attorneys as "Asbestos Lawyers" is granted. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 10 to exclude any argument that talc is safe is denied. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 11 to exclude personal-use testimony by Defendants' witnesses is argued and denied. Cannot be used in voir dire, opening statements. Cannot use Mr. Hopkins to argue his use or family's use to say that that proves it is safe. Can be used in rebuttal to all allegations as to conscious disregard to public safety. Can be used in punitive damages phase. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 14 to exclude, as an evidentiary sanction, any TEM testing reports for any TEM grids that were destroyed by Defendants is withdrawn. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 15 to exclude evidence of, or reference to settlements obtained in this matter is resolved by stipulation of the parties. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 16 to exclude evidence of, or reference to Defendants sued but not present at trial is granted as modified. Plaintiff's complaint cannot be used. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 17 to exclude evidence of, or reference to other exposures to orders or rulings issued by other courts excluding or limiting the testimony of any of Plaintiffs' Minute Order Page 2 of 4 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 BC677764 February 15, 2019 ROBERT BLINKINSOP ET AL VS ALBERTSONS 9:00 AM COMPANIES INC ET AL Judge: Honorable David S. Cunningham CSR: Aurora D. Bowser, No. 12801 Judicial Assistant: M. Cervantes ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: D. McKinney Deputy Sheriff: None expert witnesses in this case is resolved by stipulation of the parties. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 18 to exclude evidence of, or reference to the apparent lack of asbestos and/or asbestiform fibers in other companies' talc products or raw/mined talc sources that were not utilized by Defendants is deferred. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 19 to exclude Defendants from referencing Dr. Longo's marriage to a Plaintiff's attorney is denied. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 22 to exclude statements that users of Johnson's Baby Powder do not develop mesothelioma is argued and denied. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 23 to exclude Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar's speculation regarding ionizing radiation; assumed difference between cosmetic talc and industrial talc, and epidemiology studies of unrelated talc mines is argued and reserved. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 24 to exclude expert opinions by Dr. Richard Attanoos, MBBS, is argued and denied. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 25 to exclude opinions of Brian Daly based on speculation and pseudoscience: Asbestos Content of Construction Material and Exposure Levels from Talc is moot. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 26 to preclude evidence regarding asbestos "cleavage fragments," including their minerological definition and testimony by Defendants' experts Matthew Sanchez regarding them and Brooke Mossman regarding their ability to cause disease is argued and reserved pending a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code Section 402. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 27 to preclude evidence of, reference to, and/or argument about foundationless and speculative alternative exposure theories is argued and denied. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude evidence regarding other alleged defects and diseases, including ovarian cancer is granted. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude article entitled "Asbestos in Commercial Talcum Powder as a Cause of Mesothelioma in Women" and any references thereto is granted in part and denied in part. The article should not be admitted into evidence. Minute Order Page 3 of 4 202404121393 IndexNO. INDEX #: E2022002698 E2022002698 FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2024 02:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 738 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 15 BC677764 February 15, 2019 ROBERT BLINKINSOP ET AL VS ALBERTSONS 9:00 AM COMPANIES INC ET AL Judge: Honorable David S. Cunningham CSR: Aurora D. Bowser, No. 12801 Judicial Assistant: M. Cervantes ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: D. McKinney Deputy Sheriff: None Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude any reference to other lawsuits involving Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. Family of Companies and/or Defendants is granted in part. May be brought up for impeachment purposes but not in Plaintiffs' case-in-chief. Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude reference to the financial condition of Defendant's parent company is deferred. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 5 for 48-hour pre-disclosure of witnesses and 48-hour pre- disclosure of documents is deferred. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6 to preclude reference to the absence of a corporate representative at trial is deferred. Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude all evidence and testimony that Dr. Alice Blount tested JJCI products is argued and denied. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8 to exclude references to media report about talc litigation is granted. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 9 to exclude foreign investigations and proceedings is granted. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 13 to exclude opinions and testimony from Pliantiffs' expert, Dr. William Longo -- or alternatively, for an Evidence Code Section 402 hearing. The Court will hold a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code Section 402. Final Status Conference is continued to 02/19/2019 at 9:00 AM in Department 15. A copy of this minute order will append to the following coordinated case under JCCP4674: BC677764. Minute Order Page 4 of 4