arrow left
arrow right
  • GREGORY INCHAUSPE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • GREGORY INCHAUSPE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • GREGORY INCHAUSPE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • GREGORY INCHAUSPE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • GREGORY INCHAUSPE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • GREGORY INCHAUSPE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                MARY ELLEN GAMBINO, ESQ. (State Bar No. 111521)
VANDAD KHOSRAVIRAD, ESQ. (State Bar No. 253703)

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, ELECTRONICALLY
EDELMAN & DICKER LLP.

525 Market Street, 17" Floor sopekr IL ED.
San Francisco, California 94105-2725 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (415) 433-0990 JUN 10 2011

Facsimile: (415) 434-1370 Clerk of the Court

BY: ALISON AGBAY
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ANGIE INCHAUSPE, as Wrongful Death Case No.: CGC-08-274972
Heir, and as Successor-in-Interest to
GREGORY INCHAUSPE, Deceased; and
GREGORY INCHAUSPE, JR., MARIA
INCHAUSPE, as Legal Heirs of GREGORY

INCHAUSPE, Deceased,

DEFENDANT ASBESTOS
CORPORATION LTD.'S MOTION IN
LIMINE RE: THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE OF OTHER “ASBESTOS”
LAWSUITS

Plaintiffs,

Time: 11:00 AM
Dept.: $03
Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson

vs.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)

)
)
)
)
)
)
) Trial Date: June 10, 2011
)
)
}
Defendants. )
)
)

Defendant ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD. (“ACL”) prior to trial and selection of jury,
moves the court in limine to instruct plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ counsel, and plaintiffs’ witnesses 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.

DEFENDANT ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD.'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE OF OTHER “ASBESTOS” LAWSUITS
646799.1(c) There are presently pending any other lawsuits in any jurisdiction wherein
ACL is a defendant.

2. Since comment on such facts, or the altempt to introduce testimony or evidence
regarding such facts, would be highly improper and prejudicial to ACL, even if the Court 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 lawsuils 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 its
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 exists, under Evidence Code
sections 350 and 352, This would run contrary to 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.

MH
Mt
Mi
iil

2

DEFENDANT ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD.’S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE OF OTHER “ASBESTOS” LAWSUITS.

646799.1Therefore, based upon the foregoing, ACL respectfully requests that its motion in limine be

granted.

Dated: March 4, 2011 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN &
DICKER LLP
By: /s/ Vandad Khosravirad

Mary Ellen Gambino

Vandad Khosravirad

Attorneys for Defendant
ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD.

3

DEFENDANT ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD.'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

646799.1

EVIDENCE OF OTHER “ASBESTOS” LAWSUITS