Preview
mg I tt |
| Aaron Yu SBN: 304882
Wonc & ASSOCIATES |
413 Third
Oakland,
Street
CA 94607
ELKED,
, ALAMEDA COUNTY »
Telephone: (510) 451-2124
Facsimile: (510) 451-2448 ‘APR -4 2017
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Attorney 1for Plaintiff .
. Deputy |
Li Zhu Liu
ND
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
. FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA -
fo
- CIVIL UNLIMITED
O
10
LI ZHU LIV, . Case No,: RG14712640
Plaintiff ~ :
124 iAMIL 2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S
' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE °
13 ‘TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT.
ae . ' PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY
14 ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI, | © DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND
15 as trustee of the Bianchi Trust dated |. | LOIS BIANCHI ; MEMORANDUM IN
November, 13, 2006 and DOES 1-10, SUPPORT THEREOF
16
Defendants . |
17}
_ Trial Date: April 11,2017.
18
19
20 |, Plaintiff, Li Zhu Liu, (“Plaintift” ) in the’ above entitled action moves ‘this Court for an
“21
. order before trial
t to instruct Defendants, Alfred Bianchi and Lois Bianchii (hereinafter
22
collectively “Defendant”), its counsel and witnesses not to refer to; interrogate any witness :
23
.concerning, comment on, or attempt to suggest to the jury in any way the facts, arguments
24.
ASSOCIATES
*
-
SQUARE
94607
LAW
STREET.
451-2124
25° and/or other information on the following matter: a
AT
CA
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
26
(510)
&
Defendants. are excluded from entering into evidence any testimony of withesses not
413
JACK
"WONG
27] previously identified by Defendants.
28 1° .
< [MIL2] PLAINTIFF i ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT
_” PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALF RED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Liu v.Bianchi etal, Case No. RG13704000.
Plaintiff further moves this Court/to instruct the parties and their counsel not to make .
any reference to the fact that this motion|has been filed and granted. This Court shall further
WwW
order the parties, their counsel and: witnesses which parties intend to call that they be aware of
this order and that counsel shall wam and caution each and every one of said witnesses to
7)
"comply with this Court’s order. Any such question or comment regardirig the documents,
ND
answers or this motion, either directly or indirectly, would violate the rules of discovery and —
- evidence, or would be highly improper and prejudicial to Plaintiff. Even if the Court were to. .| .
Om
sustain an obj ection to the introduction of such evidence and properly:instruct the jury to
0
10° disregard such fact, the effect would nonetheless be irreversible and extremely pre} udicial to the.
i
Plaintiff.
12
Defendants make this motion: pursuant to Evidence Code §352 on the grounds that the
13
evidence sought to be excluded is far more prejudicial than probative of any issues legally
14
15 relevant to this case, and that it will confuse the issues, mislead the jury and waste time..
ary
16] . This Motionis based upon this Notice, the aécompanying Memorandum of Points and
17 Authorities in support thereof, the: pleadings, records and files, and on ‘such. oral and
18 . documentary evidence as.may be present tothe Court at the time: of the hearing on this matter
1
19
prior to trial.
. 20
21
. Respectfully Submitted, .
ord DATED: April A 2017 . , WONG & ASSOCIATES ,
23
-
24.
ASSOCIATES
|
SQUARE
LAW,
94607
STREET
451-2124
AT
25
CA
Aarén Yu
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
26 Attorney for Plaintiff
(510)
&
413
Li Zhu Liv
JACK
Won
27
28
[MIL] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION: IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT...
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM
. IN.SUPPORT THEREOF
Liu v.Bianchi et al,Case No. RG13704000
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF |)
I. INTRODUCTION -
tod
This lawsuit arises sout of a property damage claim. Plaintiff, Li Zhu Liu (Plaintifh ‘)
~ ¢laimed that her property located at 1720-1722 46" Avenue, Oakland; California has been _
‘damaged due to a fire from Defendants Alfred Bianchi and Lois Bianchi’s property located’ |
o>)
adjacent from Plaintiffs property.
i. STATEMENTS OF FACT
On December 29, 201 3, at approximately 8:00AM, fire broke out at Defendants’ property -
10 located at 4601 Foothill Boulevard, Oakland, California, The fire spread to the surrounding area
11
and caused significant damage to Plaintif? S property located at 1720- 1722 4c Avenue, _
12
“Oakland, California, which iisadjacent} to Defendants’ property. Oakland Fire Department s fire
1B
report stated that the fire started from Defendants’ property by transient who gained access to
14,
15 ‘enter into Defendants’ property.
16 Immediately following the incident, Plaintiff through her previous counsel, attempted :
17 numerous timés to contact Defendants for their insurance information, ifany, but were unable to
18 obtain such information. | |
19
On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a civil unlimited action against Defendants |
| 20
Defendants retained counsel and initiated discovery, which Plaintiff responded to through |
21-
previous counsel. Shortly thereafter, counsels for both parties withdrew and the maite was
22
23 continued for a period while both parties sought new counsel, |
°
24
*
ASSOCIATES
| Plaintiff retained Wong & Associated iniMay of 2016, ‘while Defendants remained iinPro. fe
SQUARE
94607
ATLAW
STREET
451-2124
25 Per. The Honorable J udge Freedman continued that matter several times to provide Defendant.
OAKLAND,CA
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
26
(510)
&
413
- an opportunity to retain counsel and for the parties to mediate the case. Defendants failed tot
JACK
n
WonG
=
'-
3
28
[MIL2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT
| PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Liu v.Bianchi et al.,
Case No. RG13704000
obtain counsel and failed to participate in mediation, and Judge Freedman ordered the matter set
for trial on December 2, 2016..
os)
On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Special ,
=
Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admission. On J anuary
WN
25, Defendant filed what appeared to be a proposed judgment On January 31, Plaintiff sent
HD
Defendant. an. Amerided Notice of Depesition for Defendant’ S deposition. on March 3,3201 7.
YI
. Defendant did not comply with discovery requests, and did not appear at her deposition.
Oo
On March 21, 2017, the Honorable Judge Herbert granted Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
Oo
10 and ordered Defendant to.comply with all PlaintiffsS written discoveries no later than March 30, ,
11
; 2017. The. furthermore, the Court, ordered Defendant to appear ather deposition on March 27,
12
2017, and allow Plaintiff to inspect wl real property on March 28, 2017. On March 27, 2017,
13
the Defendant failed totappear at Department 20 of the Alameda County Courthouse. The —
14 | -
AS Honorable J udge Herbert called the Defendant viai telephone on the record with Plaintiff’S
16 courisel present. Defendant promised to appear for’het deposition on Thursday, March 30,
47 ; 2017. Defendant did not appear on March 30, and informed the judge she did not believe she
18 needed to comply with the order or the discovery requests and that she had provided her sworn ~
-19
‘testimony that she had won:
20
21
22 I. LEGAL ARGUMENTS -
23 ALA Motion iin Liming iis:
Proper to Exclude Irrelevant, Inadmissible, Time
, Consuming or Prejudicial Evidence or to Seek S Ruling Admitting Relevant
24 |
ASSOCIATES
Evidence. .
SQUARE
94607
LAW
STREET
451-2124
25
AT
CA
A motion in limine iss useful to determine issues sat the beginning of trial that might
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
26
(510)
&
413
otherwise disrupt or prolong tttheproceedings ‘People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 152, 188. 191.
JACK
_WonG
27
The Court has the inherent power to grant a pre-trial motion in limine and issue an order
28
. . . . 4 . ‘ .
- [MIL2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT
PREVIOUSLY. IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM
- - INSUPPORT THEREOF
Liu v.Bianchi etal, Case No. RG13704000
excluding “any kind of evidence which could be obj ected toat trial, either as irrelevant or
subject to discretionary exclusion aasSunduly prejudicial” Clemens v. American Warranty Corp.
(1987), 193 Cal. App. 3d 444, 451. The Court’ s power to exclude evidence prior to trialincludes
the power to preclude admission into-evidence witness testimony tthat were required to be, but |
DoW
were’ not, revealed during discovery. Thoren vy.
Johnston & Washer 1972) 29 Cal. App. 3d 270
(affirming trialcourt’s granting a motionin limine excluding evidence not revealed during
I
discovery) This power issimilar to the power granted the Court by California Code of Civil |
Procedure § 2023(b)(3), which authorizes imposition of an evidentiary sanction against a party
10 who abuses the discovery process. Therefore, in order. to prevent unfair surprise and prejudice
ony
and to vindicate the primary purpose behind the enactment of the discovery statue, the Court .
12
should grant the Motion.
13
In this instant matter, Plaintiff isconcerned that Defendants may seeks to introduce
14
15 _ witnesses that Defendant has not previously identified. If these witnesses are allowed to be
16 introduced by Defendants during trialand provide testimony. to the jjury,it would be highly
17 prejudicial to Plaintiff because Plaintift didr not have a chance to depose and examine these
18, unidentified witnesses, if Defendants |iisallowed totproceed with these unidentified witnesses, it:
19
would substantially consume the Court’s time and create undue prejudice against Plaintiff
20
‘B. Defendants Should be Excluded from Introducing Any Witnesses not
21 Previously Identified.
The Court in its discretion may exclude evidence ifits probative value is.substantially
‘
23
ASSOCIATES’.
outweighed by'the probability that its submission will create a substantial danger of undue» |
24 |
‘ SQUARE
94607
LAW
STREET
prejudice totother parties. The introduction of witnesses which has not been identified would be
451-2124
AT
25
CA
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
26 highly pre} judicial to.Plaintiff and should be excluded under California Evidence Code § 352...
(510)
&
413
JACK
WONG
27 _The court in its discretion my exclude evidence if its
j
_
probative value is substantially outweighed bytthe probability
28 i.
5
(MIL2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM
- IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Liuv.|Bianchi et al.,
Case No: RG13704000 -
that this admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of
time or (b) create substantial danger of undue. prejudice, of..
confusing the issues, or of misleading the jJury.
ww
~ In general, even relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is
substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. Prejudice, as contemplated by Evidence |}.. ’
oa)
Code § 352 is that which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party and has very:
nN
littleeffect on the issues. See Vorse v, Sarasy (1997), 53 Cal. App. 4""-998, 1008-09. In this ~
~
instant matter, Defendants have failedto disclose to Plaintiff any witnessés they wish to call to"
testify and refused to.comply with rules of discovery and Court Order, If Defendants are
10. allowed to introduce witnesses at trial, itwould bring undue prejudice to Plaintiff and prolong .
“11
trial proceeding. | | ; | |
12
Furthermore, Plaintiff has previously propounded discovery requesting Defendant :
13
to identify any and all witnesses they have in this instant matter, but Defendants have failed to
14
15 identify any witnesses. After the Court|has granted Plaintiff s.Motion to Compel, Defendants
16 refused to comply with Court Order requiring them to identify witnesses: If these unidentified
cr
.Witnesses are permitted to testify during trial,could potentially-inflame the emotions of the jury,’ jo
18 motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon. which it is -
19
relevant, but to reward or punish one side because the jurors’ emotional reaction. In such a
20
circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood thee jury
21
will use
v itit
for an illegitimate purpose. People V.Branch (2001) 919Cal.I App. 4 274, 286- 287 |
22
23 AV. CONCLUSION -
24 |
°
ASSOCIATES
For reasons stated above, Plaintiff request this,Court toexclude from. entering into
|
SQUARE
94607
ATLAW
STREET
451-2124
25°
CA
evidence any testimony of witnesses not previously identified by Defendants, which could
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
(510)
&
26
413
create undue prejudice to Plaintiff and mislead the juries in this instant matter.
JACK
‘WonG
27
28 6 .
[MIL2} PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM
IN‘SUPPORT THEREOF ~
Liu v. Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000
Respectfully Submitted,
w
DATED: April 4\ 2017. WONG & ASSOCIATES |
Aaron Yu
ws
Attorney for Plaj ff te
Li Zhu Liu Ce Do
nN
~
©
O°
10
“de
oe 12.
13
14
-15
16
17.
18
~ 19].
20
51 7
_ 22
23
ASSOCIATES
24
.
SQUARE
94607
LAW
STREET
451-2124
25
AT
OAKLAND,CA
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
(510)
26
WonG&
413
Jack
27
-’
a
381
~[MIL2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION: IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT.
- PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED-BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM:
IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Liu v.Bianchi etal.,Case No: RG13704000 .
fs
Preview
mg I tt | | Aaron Yu SBN: 304882 Wonc & ASSOCIATES | 413 Third Oakland, Street CA 94607 ELKED, , ALAMEDA COUNTY » Telephone: (510) 451-2124 Facsimile: (510) 451-2448 ‘APR -4 2017 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Attorney 1for Plaintiff . . Deputy | Li Zhu Liu ND SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA . FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - fo - CIVIL UNLIMITED O 10 LI ZHU LIV, . Case No,: RG14712640 Plaintiff ~ : 124 iAMIL 2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S ' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ° 13 ‘TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT. ae . ' PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY 14 ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI, | © DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND 15 as trustee of the Bianchi Trust dated |. | LOIS BIANCHI ; MEMORANDUM IN November, 13, 2006 and DOES 1-10, SUPPORT THEREOF 16 Defendants . | 17} _ Trial Date: April 11,2017. 18 19 20 |, Plaintiff, Li Zhu Liu, (“Plaintift” ) in the’ above entitled action moves ‘this Court for an “21 . order before trial t to instruct Defendants, Alfred Bianchi and Lois Bianchii (hereinafter 22 collectively “Defendant”), its counsel and witnesses not to refer to; interrogate any witness : 23 .concerning, comment on, or attempt to suggest to the jury in any way the facts, arguments 24. ASSOCIATES * - SQUARE 94607 LAW STREET. 451-2124 25° and/or other information on the following matter: a AT CA LONDON ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, 26 (510) & Defendants. are excluded from entering into evidence any testimony of withesses not 413 JACK "WONG 27] previously identified by Defendants. 28 1° . < [MIL2] PLAINTIFF i ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT _” PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALF RED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Liu v.Bianchi etal, Case No. RG13704000. Plaintiff further moves this Court/to instruct the parties and their counsel not to make . any reference to the fact that this motion|has been filed and granted. This Court shall further WwW order the parties, their counsel and: witnesses which parties intend to call that they be aware of this order and that counsel shall wam and caution each and every one of said witnesses to 7) "comply with this Court’s order. Any such question or comment regardirig the documents, ND answers or this motion, either directly or indirectly, would violate the rules of discovery and — - evidence, or would be highly improper and prejudicial to Plaintiff. Even if the Court were to. .| . Om sustain an obj ection to the introduction of such evidence and properly:instruct the jury to 0 10° disregard such fact, the effect would nonetheless be irreversible and extremely pre} udicial to the. i Plaintiff. 12 Defendants make this motion: pursuant to Evidence Code §352 on the grounds that the 13 evidence sought to be excluded is far more prejudicial than probative of any issues legally 14 15 relevant to this case, and that it will confuse the issues, mislead the jury and waste time.. ary 16] . This Motionis based upon this Notice, the aécompanying Memorandum of Points and 17 Authorities in support thereof, the: pleadings, records and files, and on ‘such. oral and 18 . documentary evidence as.may be present tothe Court at the time: of the hearing on this matter 1 19 prior to trial. . 20 21 . Respectfully Submitted, . ord DATED: April A 2017 . , WONG & ASSOCIATES , 23 - 24. ASSOCIATES | SQUARE LAW, 94607 STREET 451-2124 AT 25 CA Aarén Yu LONDON ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, 26 Attorney for Plaintiff (510) & 413 Li Zhu Liv JACK Won 27 28 [MIL] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION: IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT... PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM . IN.SUPPORT THEREOF Liu v.Bianchi et al,Case No. RG13704000 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF |) I. INTRODUCTION - tod This lawsuit arises sout of a property damage claim. Plaintiff, Li Zhu Liu (Plaintifh ‘) ~ ¢laimed that her property located at 1720-1722 46" Avenue, Oakland; California has been _ ‘damaged due to a fire from Defendants Alfred Bianchi and Lois Bianchi’s property located’ | o>) adjacent from Plaintiffs property. i. STATEMENTS OF FACT On December 29, 201 3, at approximately 8:00AM, fire broke out at Defendants’ property - 10 located at 4601 Foothill Boulevard, Oakland, California, The fire spread to the surrounding area 11 and caused significant damage to Plaintif? S property located at 1720- 1722 4c Avenue, _ 12 “Oakland, California, which iisadjacent} to Defendants’ property. Oakland Fire Department s fire 1B report stated that the fire started from Defendants’ property by transient who gained access to 14, 15 ‘enter into Defendants’ property. 16 Immediately following the incident, Plaintiff through her previous counsel, attempted : 17 numerous timés to contact Defendants for their insurance information, ifany, but were unable to 18 obtain such information. | | 19 On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a civil unlimited action against Defendants | | 20 Defendants retained counsel and initiated discovery, which Plaintiff responded to through | 21- previous counsel. Shortly thereafter, counsels for both parties withdrew and the maite was 22 23 continued for a period while both parties sought new counsel, | ° 24 * ASSOCIATES | Plaintiff retained Wong & Associated iniMay of 2016, ‘while Defendants remained iinPro. fe SQUARE 94607 ATLAW STREET 451-2124 25 Per. The Honorable J udge Freedman continued that matter several times to provide Defendant. OAKLAND,CA LONDON ATTORNEYS THIRD 26 (510) & 413 - an opportunity to retain counsel and for the parties to mediate the case. Defendants failed tot JACK n WonG = '- 3 28 [MIL2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT | PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Liu v.Bianchi et al., Case No. RG13704000 obtain counsel and failed to participate in mediation, and Judge Freedman ordered the matter set for trial on December 2, 2016.. os) On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Special , = Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admission. On J anuary WN 25, Defendant filed what appeared to be a proposed judgment On January 31, Plaintiff sent HD Defendant. an. Amerided Notice of Depesition for Defendant’ S deposition. on March 3,3201 7. YI . Defendant did not comply with discovery requests, and did not appear at her deposition. Oo On March 21, 2017, the Honorable Judge Herbert granted Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Oo 10 and ordered Defendant to.comply with all PlaintiffsS written discoveries no later than March 30, , 11 ; 2017. The. furthermore, the Court, ordered Defendant to appear ather deposition on March 27, 12 2017, and allow Plaintiff to inspect wl real property on March 28, 2017. On March 27, 2017, 13 the Defendant failed totappear at Department 20 of the Alameda County Courthouse. The — 14 | - AS Honorable J udge Herbert called the Defendant viai telephone on the record with Plaintiff’S 16 courisel present. Defendant promised to appear for’het deposition on Thursday, March 30, 47 ; 2017. Defendant did not appear on March 30, and informed the judge she did not believe she 18 needed to comply with the order or the discovery requests and that she had provided her sworn ~ -19 ‘testimony that she had won: 20 21 22 I. LEGAL ARGUMENTS - 23 ALA Motion iin Liming iis: Proper to Exclude Irrelevant, Inadmissible, Time , Consuming or Prejudicial Evidence or to Seek S Ruling Admitting Relevant 24 | ASSOCIATES Evidence. . SQUARE 94607 LAW STREET 451-2124 25 AT CA A motion in limine iss useful to determine issues sat the beginning of trial that might LONDON ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, 26 (510) & 413 otherwise disrupt or prolong tttheproceedings ‘People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 152, 188. 191. JACK _WonG 27 The Court has the inherent power to grant a pre-trial motion in limine and issue an order 28 . . . . 4 . ‘ . - [MIL2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT PREVIOUSLY. IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM - - INSUPPORT THEREOF Liu v.Bianchi etal, Case No. RG13704000 excluding “any kind of evidence which could be obj ected toat trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion aasSunduly prejudicial” Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987), 193 Cal. App. 3d 444, 451. The Court’ s power to exclude evidence prior to trialincludes the power to preclude admission into-evidence witness testimony tthat were required to be, but | DoW were’ not, revealed during discovery. Thoren vy. Johnston & Washer 1972) 29 Cal. App. 3d 270 (affirming trialcourt’s granting a motionin limine excluding evidence not revealed during I discovery) This power issimilar to the power granted the Court by California Code of Civil | Procedure § 2023(b)(3), which authorizes imposition of an evidentiary sanction against a party 10 who abuses the discovery process. Therefore, in order. to prevent unfair surprise and prejudice ony and to vindicate the primary purpose behind the enactment of the discovery statue, the Court . 12 should grant the Motion. 13 In this instant matter, Plaintiff isconcerned that Defendants may seeks to introduce 14 15 _ witnesses that Defendant has not previously identified. If these witnesses are allowed to be 16 introduced by Defendants during trialand provide testimony. to the jjury,it would be highly 17 prejudicial to Plaintiff because Plaintift didr not have a chance to depose and examine these 18, unidentified witnesses, if Defendants |iisallowed totproceed with these unidentified witnesses, it: 19 would substantially consume the Court’s time and create undue prejudice against Plaintiff 20 ‘B. Defendants Should be Excluded from Introducing Any Witnesses not 21 Previously Identified. The Court in its discretion may exclude evidence ifits probative value is.substantially ‘ 23 ASSOCIATES’. outweighed by'the probability that its submission will create a substantial danger of undue» | 24 | ‘ SQUARE 94607 LAW STREET prejudice totother parties. The introduction of witnesses which has not been identified would be 451-2124 AT 25 CA LONDON ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, 26 highly pre} judicial to.Plaintiff and should be excluded under California Evidence Code § 352... (510) & 413 JACK WONG 27 _The court in its discretion my exclude evidence if its j _ probative value is substantially outweighed bytthe probability 28 i. 5 (MIL2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM - IN SUPPORT THEREOF Liuv.|Bianchi et al., Case No: RG13704000 - that this admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue. prejudice, of.. confusing the issues, or of misleading the jJury. ww ~ In general, even relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. Prejudice, as contemplated by Evidence |}.. ’ oa) Code § 352 is that which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party and has very: nN littleeffect on the issues. See Vorse v, Sarasy (1997), 53 Cal. App. 4""-998, 1008-09. In this ~ ~ instant matter, Defendants have failedto disclose to Plaintiff any witnessés they wish to call to" testify and refused to.comply with rules of discovery and Court Order, If Defendants are 10. allowed to introduce witnesses at trial, itwould bring undue prejudice to Plaintiff and prolong . “11 trial proceeding. | | ; | | 12 Furthermore, Plaintiff has previously propounded discovery requesting Defendant : 13 to identify any and all witnesses they have in this instant matter, but Defendants have failed to 14 15 identify any witnesses. After the Court|has granted Plaintiff s.Motion to Compel, Defendants 16 refused to comply with Court Order requiring them to identify witnesses: If these unidentified cr .Witnesses are permitted to testify during trial,could potentially-inflame the emotions of the jury,’ jo 18 motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon. which it is - 19 relevant, but to reward or punish one side because the jurors’ emotional reaction. In such a 20 circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood thee jury 21 will use v itit for an illegitimate purpose. People V.Branch (2001) 919Cal.I App. 4 274, 286- 287 | 22 23 AV. CONCLUSION - 24 | ° ASSOCIATES For reasons stated above, Plaintiff request this,Court toexclude from. entering into | SQUARE 94607 ATLAW STREET 451-2124 25° CA evidence any testimony of witnesses not previously identified by Defendants, which could LONDON ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, (510) & 26 413 create undue prejudice to Plaintiff and mislead the juries in this instant matter. JACK ‘WonG 27 28 6 . [MIL2} PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN‘SUPPORT THEREOF ~ Liu v. Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000 Respectfully Submitted, w DATED: April 4\ 2017. WONG & ASSOCIATES | Aaron Yu ws Attorney for Plaj ff te Li Zhu Liu Ce Do nN ~ © O° 10 “de oe 12. 13 14 -15 16 17. 18 ~ 19]. 20 51 7 _ 22 23 ASSOCIATES 24 . SQUARE 94607 LAW STREET 451-2124 25 AT OAKLAND,CA LONDON ATTORNEYS THIRD (510) 26 WonG& 413 Jack 27 -’ a 381 ~[MIL2] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION: IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES NOT. - PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED-BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM: IN SUPPORT THEREOF Liu v.Bianchi etal.,Case No: RG13704000 . fs