Motion,Ex Parte: GODOFREDO PIQUE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                DAVID T. BIDERMAN, State Bar No. 101577
dbiderman@perkinscoie.com

BRIEN F. MCMAHON, State Bar No. 66809 ELECTRONICALLY
bmemahon@perkinscoie.com

ERIC D. SENTLINGER, State Bar No. 215380 FILED.
esentlinger@perkinscoie.com Superior Court of California,
PERKINS COIE LLP County of San Francisco
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 MAY 01 2013
San Francisco, CA 94111 Clerk of the Court
Telephone: (415) 344-7000 BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Facsimile: (415) 344-7288 Deputy Clerk

KEVIN C. MAYER, Bar No. 118177
kmayer@crowell.com

CROWELL & MORING LLP

515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 622-4750
Facsimile: (213) 622-2690

Attorneys for Defendant

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
fik/a AlliedSignal, Inc., Successor-in-Interest to
The Bendix Corporation

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROSITA PIQUE, et al., Case No. CGC-08-274659

Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE
Vv. DEFENDANTS FROM IMPROPER
QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE
DANA COMPANIES, LLC, et. al. JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE

Defendants. Trial Date: April 29, 2013
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Dept.: 611

Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks a broad Order to forestall any “improper” questioning of
prospective jurors by the Defendant in this case. Honeywell can assure the Court that its trial
attorneys do not ask improper questions during oral voir dire, and notes the Court can entertain

objections to specific questions as the need arises.

1

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENDANTS FROM IMPROPER,
QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE
3981 2-0003.2073/..EGAL26576883.1Plaintiffs’ Motion is, in any event, not a proper motion in limine as it does not seek to
preclude the admission of specific evidence, but rather hypothetical questioning during voir dire.
There is no legal or factual basis for Plaintiffs’ Motion, based as it ison the sheerest
speculations about future events. Thus, it should be denied.

I. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion Is Improper, Vague And Overbroad

Plaintiffs’ Motion is a vague and overbroad attempt to preclude any “questions and/or
statements” that could possibly “precondition” or “indoctrinate” prospective jurors during voir
dire questioning. In support of this nebulous request, throughout their motion, Plaintiffs list
examples of questions they deem to be “improper” and want this Court to exclude. (see Plaintiffs’
Motion in Limine to Prechide the Defendants from Improper Questioning of Prospective Jurors
During Voir Dire, 5:10-21, 6:4-9; 7:3-13; and 9:3-12).

Plaintiffs go on to state that the questions they want this Court to exclude are “not [even]
necessarily limited to” those examples listed in their motion. In other words, there are many
other as-yet-undetermined “improper” questions Plaintiffs want this Court to exclude. Plaintiffs
failure to provide any guidance on the point illustrates the impropriety of the motion, and why it
should be denied outright.

An motion in limine is properly used to exclude specific evidence deemed inadmissible or
unduly prejudicial by the moving party. [People v. Morris (1991) 53 C3d 152; (disapproved on
other grounds in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 C.4th 824, 830); FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Cos.
(1998) 61 CA4th 1132, 1168] The purpose is to “avoid the obviously futile attempt to ‘unring the
bell’ “when highly prejudicial evidence is offered and then stricken at trial. [People v. Morris,
supra, 53 C.3d at 188: Hyait v. Sierra Boat Co, (1978) 79 CA.3d 325, 337-339; see Pellegrini v.
Weiss (2008) 165 CA4th 515, 530; “motion in limine was used for its proper purpose - as a ruling
in advance of an evidentiary objection that was bound to come up during the course of the trial””]

Motions in limine serve other purposes as well: They permit more careful consideration of
evidentiary issues than would take place in the heat of battle during trial. They minimize sidebar

conferences and disruptions during trial. Finally, by resolving critical evidentiary issues at the
2

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENDANTS FROM IMPROPER,
QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE
3981 2-0003.2073/..EGAL26576883.1outset, they enhance efficiency of the trial process and promote settlements. [People v. Morris,
supra, 53 C3d at 188: Kelly v. New West Fed.Sav. (1996) 49 CA4th 659, 669-670]

Contrary to these purposes, Plaintiffs here are not seeking to exclude any specific
evidence. Instead, Plaintiffs are improperly attempting to obtain a blanket ruling precluding any
“questions and/or statements” that could possibly “precondition” or “indoctrinate” prospective
jurors during voir dire questioning. This is not a proper use of the motion in limine vehicle.
Plaintiffs’ motion must therefore be denied.

Additionally, Plaintiffs offer no factual support for their request. Plaintiffs merely attach
the unauthenticated Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings of the alleged voir dire examinations
and objections from “a former case,” (See Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude
the Defendants from Improper Questioning of Prospective Jurors During Voir Dire) Plaintiffs fail
to show how the proceedings in this “former case” — which is unrelated to the present matter, was
tried before a different judge and involved parties and issues that are different from those in the
present matter ~ in any way relate to Honeywell, its attorneys, or this case. Plaintiffs merely
speculate that “improper questions” — whatever their scope — might/ possibly/perhaps be asked
during voir dire in this matter. Because Plaintiffs’ motion is unsupported by facts and rife with
conjecture as to what Honeywell counsel might ask potential jurors, Plaintiffs’ motion must be
denied.

B. Plaintiffs’ Motion Is Not Supported By The Cited Evidence

In asserting that Honeywell’s voir dire questioning will be improper, Plaintiffs rely
entirely on a transcript from the purported voir dire proceedings that took place in 2012, Leonard
v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., SFSC Case No, CGC-10-275715, presided over by the Hon, Ernest H.
Goldsmith. This transcript offers no support for their position.

While the Brayton firm raised numerous objections to the defense’s voir dire questioning
during the Leonard case, the transcript establishes that Judge Goldsmith did not sustain any of
those objections. Many of the questions about which Plaintiffs complain are indisputably proper
on their face. In the end, Judge Goldsmith refused to accept Plaintiffs’ claim in the Leonard case

that the questioning was aimed at an improper purpose, and. noted that the jury would be
3

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENDANTS FROM IMPROPER,
QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE
3981 2-0003.2073/..EGAL26576883.1instructed that any opinions offered by counsel should be ignored. (Leonard Transcript, Exhibit
A, at 116:6-14.)

Honeywell agrees that voir dire must entail proper inquiry for the purpose of exercising
appropriate challenges for cause and peremptory strikes. However, no admonition is required,
and certainly no anticipatory and advisory opinion is merited, to enforce the well-known rules
regarding appropriate voir dire. Honeywell has no doubt that this Court will sustain a well-taken
and timely objection to an improper question.

HI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Honeywell requests that Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine To
Preclude The Defendants From Improper Questioning Of Prospective Jurors During Voir Dire be
denied.

DATED: May 1, 2013 PERKINS COLE LLP

By: /S/ Eric D, Sentlinger
Eric D. Sentlinger

Attorneys for Defendant

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
jikéa A\liedSignal, Inc., Successor-in-Interest to
The Bendix Corporation

4

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENDANTS FROM IMPROPER,
QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE
3981 2-0003.2073/..EGAL26576883.1