On May 20, 2009 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Juelch, Joyce, Juelch Sr, Norman, and 3M Company, 84 Lumber Company, 84 Lumber Company, A Limited Partnership, All Asbestos Defendants, Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust, Asbestos Defendants, Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, F K A, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Csk Auto, Inc., Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc., Does 1-8500, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, General Electric Company, Genuine Parts Company, Hamilton Materials, Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., Pacific Gas And Electric Company, Pacipic Bell Telephone Company, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Quintec Industries, Inc., Redwood Plumbing Co., Inc., Santa Fe Braun, Inc., Sequoia Ventures Inc., Shell Oil Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Timec Company, Inc., Tosco Refining Company, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Union Oil Company Of California, Unocal Corporation, for ASBESTOS in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
28 MCKENNA LONG & ALorioce LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law SAN FRANCISCO. LISA L. OBERG (BAR NO. 120139) DANIEL B. HOYE (BAR NO. 139683) ALECIA E. COTTON (BAR NO, 252777) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ELECTRONICALLY 101 California Street FILED 41st Floor Superior Court of California, San Francisco, CA 94111 County of San Francisco Telephone: (415) 267-4000 APR 13 2010 Facsimile: (415) 267-4198 Clerk of the Court . BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOYCE JUELCH and Case No. CGC-09-275212 NORMAN JUELCH, SR., DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE RE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF OTHER “ASBESTOS” LAWSUITS AND VERDICTS Plaintiffs, [MIL £2] v. TRIAL DATE: APRIL 5, 2010 DEPT.: 604 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, (BP), ef al., JUDGE: HONORABLE MARLA J. MILLER Defendants. THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT (hereinafter “Defendant”) prior to trial and selection of jury, moves the Court im /imine to instruct plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel as set forth below: 1. it is immaterial to this suit whether or not: (a) There are presently pending any other lawsuits in the Superior Courts of California wherein plaintiffs are claiming damages stemming from exposure to asbestos; {b) There are presently pending any other lawsuits outside the Superior Courts of California wherein plaintiffs are claiming damages stemming from exposure to asbestos. 2. Since comment on such facts, or the attempt to introduce testimony or evidence regarding such facts, would be highly improper and prejudicial to Defendant, even if the Court -1- DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF OTHER “ASBESTOS” LAWSUITS AND VERDICTS [MIL 12} SP1274185161oe MAH Rw NY MY RR NN NR Rm SD A & WN = SO eB YW KH HW BB HY | S 28 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ATTORNEYS AY Law SAN FRANCISCO were to sustain an objection thereto, and properly instruct the jury not to consider facts, Defendant requests that the Court order plaintiffs to abstain from any reference, comment, or evidence either by way of documents or testimony as to any reference to lawsuits involving asbestos exposure other than the case at bar, without first obtaining permission of the Court outside presence and hearing of the jury. 3. The Court is further requested to order that plaintiffs’ counsel so inform all of their witnesses to not make any such reference to any documents of this nature and to otherwise strictly follow these instructions in argument by counsel. Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of cases have been filed by individuals alleging damages resulting from asbestos exposure. The number of cases is absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand and the mere mention of such numbers is highly prejudicial. It would raise an inference with the jury that due to the number and scope of the claims, a “kernel” of truth exist, under Hvidence Code sections 350 and 352. This would totally pervert the purpose of a jury trial. Pending litigation is just that. It is a matter consisting of allegations yet to be proven. Whether there be one, hundreds, or hundreds of thousands of other cases pending is of no importance and has no relevance to this lawsuit. In reality, each complaint is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. Defendant realizes that it would be difficult to totally eliminate reference to other cases in the context of depositions or trial transcripts. However, such reference should be strictly limited and deleted wherever possible, with the proper admonition to the jury where necessary. -2- DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF OTHER "ASBESTOS" LAWSUITS AND VERDICTS [MIL 12] SP:2741851611 Therefore, based upon the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that its motion i 2 | timine be granted. 4 | Dated: April 5, 2010 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP By: Ah Gicw G. Ch 6 Lisa L. OBERG 7 DanieL B. HOYE 3 ALECIA E. COTTON 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION 28 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP -3- ornare DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF OTHER ‘ASBESTOS’ LAWSUITS AND VERDICTS [MIL 12] SP:27418516.1