Preview
‘Aaron
WonG
Yu
&
SBN: 304882.
ASSOCIATES
F ILE
ALAMEDA
D
COUNTY
APR
413 Third Street’
~
N
-Oakland;
Telephone:
CA 94607.
(510) 451-2124
4 2017
Ww
Facsimile: (510) 451-2448 _CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
By_<
&
SG CE A)
Deputy |
Diwan.
Attorney for Plaintiff ©
Li Zhu Liu
SY
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA |
CIVIL UNLIMITED ,
Oo.
“107
11
LI ZHU LIU, ~ Case No.: RG14712640
"Plaintiff
12 _ [MILI] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE
13 USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT
PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR — |
14 ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI, DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN
15 as trustee of the Bianchi Trust dated ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES BY -
November, 13, 2006 and DOES 1-10) . . _.DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND
16 LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN
Defendants SUPPORT THEREOF
174
“18.
19 -Trial Date: April 11, 2017
20
21
Oo Plaintiff, Li Zhu Liu, (“Plaintiff”) in the above entitled action moves this Court for an
22
order before trial to instruct Defendants, Alfred Bianchi: and Lois Bianchi (hereinafter ;
23
ASSOCIATES
collectively “Defendant”), its counsel and witnesses on the following matter:
24
SQUARE.
94607
AT Law
STREET
451-2124
CA
25. Defendants are precluded from entering into evidence: 7
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
(510)
&
413
26 W
JACK
Wonc
27.
28 1
[MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI-ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT
‘PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS
; BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Liu v.Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000- ,
i. Any documents or testimony tegarding documents, which have noi been produced by | ;
Defendant in response to proper Request for Production of Document pursuant to.
WN
WwW
California Code of Civil Procedure EC. C.P”) §2031, 010 et seq.; -
BR
2. Any documents or testimony; regarding documents which have not been identified ini
nN
. answers to form or special interrogatories pursuant to C.C.P §2030.010 et seq. and, :
N
. 3. Any documents or testimony regarding documents whicli have not been introduced as:
os
an exhibit to a deposition of witnesses therein.
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. Plaintiff further moves this Court]. - |
1
- to order. the parties, their counsel and witnesses which partiés intend to callthat they be awareof
12°}. .
this order and that counsel shall warnl and caution each and every one of said witnesses to comply
13
with this Court’s order. Any such question or comment regarding the documents, answers or this
14
15 motion, either directly or indirectly, would violate the rules of discovery and evidence, or would
16 be highly improper and prejudicial to Plaintiff. Even if the Court were to sustain an objection to =
17. “the introduction of such evidence and properly instruct the jury to disregard such fact, the effect |
18 would nonetheless be irreversible and extremely prej udicial to the Plaintiff,
19
Defendants make this motion pursuant to Evidence Code §352 on the grounds that the
20
- evidence sought to be excluded is far more prejudicial than probative of any issues legally
21
relevant to this case, and that it will confuse the issues, mislead the jury and waste time.
22
23 This Motion is based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities .:
ASSOCIATES
24
SQUARE
and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be present to the Court at the time of the ~
94607
LAW
STREET
451-2124
AT
CA
25
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
hearing on this matter prior to trial.
THIRD
OAKLAND,
(310)
&
413
26
-WoNnG
JACK
-27
28 | 2.
~ [MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’ S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT '
PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS ‘NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS
BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
Liu v.Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000
Respectfully Submitted, .
DATED: WONG & ASSOCIATES
‘Aaron Yu“
Attorney for Plaintiff. .
Li Zhu Liu
10
ae
“12
13
“15
16
“17
ig)
19
20 |
21
22
2B
.
ASSOCIATES
24 |
|
SQUARE
94607
LAW
STREET
451-2124
25
AT
CA
LONDON
“ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
(510)
&
26
413
JACK
WonG
27
-
28
[MIL1] PLAINTIFF LIZHU LIU’ siMOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT ;
PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR’ DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS
_BY. DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
bi v.Bianchi etal, Case No. RG13704000
MEMORANDUM OFF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT: THEREOF
oL INTRODUCTION |.
This lawsuit arises out of a property damage claim, Plaintiff Li Zhu Liu (“Plaintiff”)
claimed that her property located at 1720-1722 46h Avenue, Oakland, California has been’ .
damaged due to a fire from Defendants Alfred Bianchi and Lois Bianchi’ S (hereinafter
NID
collectively “Defendants”) property located adjacent from Plaintif’s property.
os | ns STATEMENTS OF FACT ,
Oo
. On December 29, 2013, at approximately 8:00AM, firebroke out atDefendants’ property
Oo
10 located at 4601 Foothill Boulevard, Oakland, California. The fire spread to the surrounding area
11
. and caused significant damage to Plaintiff's property located at 1720-1722 46" Avenue, Oakland,
12
California, which 1isadjacent to Defendants property. Oakland Fite Department’ sfire.report -
13
stated that the fire started from Defendants’ property byaa transient who gained access into
14
15 Defendants’ property.
16 Immediately following the incident, Plaintiff,Ethrough her previous counsel, attempted
17 |.numerous times to contact Defendants for theiriinsurance ‘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
prévious counsel. Shortly thereafter, counsels for both parties withdrew and the matter was
22
23 - continued for a period while both parties sought new counsel.
ASSOCIATES
.
- Plaintiff retained Wong & Associated in May of 2016, while Defendants remained in Pro.
SQUARE
24
94607
AT LAW
STREET
451-2124
CA
25
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
Per. The Honorable Judge Freedman continued that matter several times to provide Defendant an | .
THIRD
OAKLAND,
(810)
&
26
413
JACK
WonG
opportunity to retain counsel andifor the parties to mediate the case. Defendants failed to obtain
.
27,
.
28 4
~ [MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU. LIU’ S| MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT
PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS
‘BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED erie: AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
. ; . Liuv. Bianchi etal., ‘CaseNo. RG13704000 .
counsel and failed to participate in mediation, and Judge Freedman ordered the matter set for trial
N.
“on December 2, 2016.
we
-On- January 12, 2017; Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Special .
&
. Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admission. - On Jaranuary
ws
25, , Defendant filed what appeared to-be a proposed judgment. On J anuary 31,»Plainsift sent
Defendant an Amended Notice of Depesiion for Defendant’s deposition onn March 3, 2017.
~
Defendant did not comply with discovery requests, and- did not appear at her. deposition.
On March 21, 2017, the Honorable J udge Herbert granted Plaintiff? s Motion to Compel =e
_ 10 . and ordered Defendant to comply with all Plaintiff's written discoveries no later than March 30, :
“41
2017. The furthermore, the Court ordered Defendant totappear at her deposition on 1March 27,
12
2017, and allow Plaintiff to inspect’ the real property on Maich 38, 2017. On March 27, 2017, the
13,
4
Defendant failed to appear at Department 20 of the Alameda County Courthouse. The Honorable
15 judge Herbert called the Defendant via telephone on the record with Plaintiff's counsel present
16 Defendant promised to appear for her deposition on Thursday, March 30, 2017. Defendant did
VW not appear on March 30, and informed the judge she did not believe she needed to comply with |
1s
the order or the discovery requests'and that she had provided her swom testimony that she had .
19
won.
20-7.
21
22 UI. LEGAL ARGUMENTS
+23 A. A Motion in Limine is Proper to Exclude Irrelevant, Inadmissible, Time Consuming
-
or Prejudicial Evidence or to Seek a Ruling Admitting Relevant Evidence.
ASSOCIATES.
**
.-
SQUARE
24
94607
AT LAW
STREET
451-2124
A motion in limine is useful to determine i issues at the beginning of.trialthat might -
CA
LONDON
25
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
(510)
WONG&
; otherwise disrupt or prolong the proceedings. People v.Morris (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 152, 188: 191.
26
413
JACK
___
27 - Motions in limine may be used to obtain rulings itin
advance of trial that particular evidence i is
’
5
28
[MIL1]} PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’ S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT ©
PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS
BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Liu v. Bianchi etal, Case No. RG13704000
| admissible or inadmissible. See, e.g., People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal. 34963, 975; Pugh v.
‘See’s Candies, Inc. (1988) 203 Cal. App.3d 743, 757. Moreover, the burden iison the objecting
_party to )request the admission orr exclusion of evidence, Abbett Electric Corp. v. Sullwold (1987).
_ 193 Cal.App.3d 708. The Cou in itsdiscretion may exclude evidence if itsprobative value is
th .
substantially outweighed by the probability that its submission will create a substantial danger of |
undue prejudice to other partes California Evidence Code 5352
In this instant matter, , Defendants may seek to introduce documents or testimony related
to documents that Defendant has not previously produced iniresponse to proper requests for.
10 production of documents pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031 et seq.; or
Ay documents, or testimony related to documents, which have not been identified inianswers to form ;
‘12. , ce an
or special interrogatories pursuant to California’ Code of Civil Procedure § 2030 et seq.: or
2B
- documents or testimony regarding.documents which have not been introduced as an exhibit toa
14
“15 deposition of the witnesses therein.
16 | B. “Defendants Should be Excluded from Using Any Document Not Previously
Produced. ; . oo
17°
The introduction of documentary evidence «ortestimony related to documentary evidence, -
“18
“19 which has not produced would be highly prejudicial to-Plaintiff and should be excluded under
20 - California Evidence Code 5 352.
21 The court in its discretion my exclude evidence if itsprobative
value is substantially outweighed by.the probability that tis
22 | admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or -
23 (b) create substantial danger of undue. prejudice, of confusing
the issues, or of misleading: ‘the jury:
j
24
‘ASSOCIATES,
.
-
SQUARE
94607
ATLAW
STREET
451-2124
Defendants have previously defied the rules of discovery and evidence in refusing to _
25 | : 7
CA
LONDON
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
(510)
&
6. . ‘respond and produce the documents to the Plaintiff which resulted in the Plaintiff filing a motion.
413
JACK
WonG
.to compel, in which Defendants disregarded the Order by the court compelling discovery.
_ 28
[MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’ S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT |.
PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS .
BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
, Liu v:Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000
7 California courts have barred the ‘introduction of evidence and/or testimony inccases
. where the abuse of discovery does not rewch the level of misuse observed iin this case. In the case
of Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal. App.3d 241, the court upheld the trial.court’s sexclusion. from
evidence of a tape recording which one party had failed to identify and/or produce in response to
timely interrogatories and request for production of documents. The court opined that allowing
nN -
the introduction of such evidence would unfairly surprise and prevent proper preparation for trial.
~
|. Id. at3 PP. 254-255.
io)
In Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal. App, 4th 1525 the court tupheld the trialcourt’s
‘0
\o
preclusion into evidence of documents that were not produced iinresponse toa timely and duly -
asl
served request for production of documents. In ruling, the appellate court quoted the trial court’s
12
admonition of the misuse of the discovery process:
1B
It was‘a total reprehensible violation of the court’s rules,
“14 practices and policies for a litigant to withhold
15 documentation thatis the subject of discovery and then —
surprisingly and unexplainably. find them during trial.°
16
.Id. atp- 1543.
17
_ Plaintiff has given ample time for Defendants to response to propounded discoveries, in
18
19 which Defendants has refused. Defendants have also refused to Court Order requiring -
20 Defendants to respond. Plaintiff has attempted inigood faith to request documents from
21 Defendants, but Defendants have refused.and failed-and continues to refuse and fail to produce.
22 - Therefore, the Court should not allow Defendants to produce any documents during trialthat
could create undue prejudice to Plaintiffs and prolong trial proceeding.
ASSOCIATES
SQUARE
24
94607
LAW
STREET
451-2124
IV. CONCLUSION
AT
CA
LONDON
25
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND;
(510)
&
26.
413
JACK
WONG
27
| 28
7.
. [MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’ SMOTION IN.LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS bNOT |
_ PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS: NOT IDENTIFIED.IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS
_ BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Liu vy.
Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000
-For reasons stated above, Plaintiff requests this Court to exclude the use of documents not
--previously produced or documents not identified in answers to interrogatories by Defendants,
which are misleading and/or prejudicial.
Respectfully Submitted,
DB
“DATED: April - =. -, 2017 WONG & ASSOCIATES -
NI
Co
0.
10 “Aaron Yu.
: 11 Attorney for Plaintiff
- LiZhu Liu
12
13.
14
AS,
16
17
18
19
20 |
21
22
23
ASSOCIATES
©
24 |.
SQUARE
94607
LAW
—
STREET
451-2124
AT
CA
LONDON
25
ATTORNEYS
THIRD
OAKLAND,
(510)
&
413
JACK
WONG
27
28
([MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT
PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR: DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO.INTERROGATOREIS ~
BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Liu v,Bianchi etal.,Case No.». RG13704000 :
Preview
‘Aaron WonG Yu & SBN: 304882. ASSOCIATES F ILE ALAMEDA D COUNTY APR 413 Third Street’ ~ N -Oakland; Telephone: CA 94607. (510) 451-2124 4 2017 Ww Facsimile: (510) 451-2448 _CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT By_< & SG CE A) Deputy | Diwan. Attorney for Plaintiff © Li Zhu Liu SY SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA | CIVIL UNLIMITED , Oo. “107 11 LI ZHU LIU, ~ Case No.: RG14712640 "Plaintiff 12 _ [MILI] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE 13 USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR — | 14 ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI, DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN 15 as trustee of the Bianchi Trust dated ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES BY - November, 13, 2006 and DOES 1-10) . . _.DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND 16 LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN Defendants SUPPORT THEREOF 174 “18. 19 -Trial Date: April 11, 2017 20 21 Oo Plaintiff, Li Zhu Liu, (“Plaintiff”) in the above entitled action moves this Court for an 22 order before trial to instruct Defendants, Alfred Bianchi: and Lois Bianchi (hereinafter ; 23 ASSOCIATES collectively “Defendant”), its counsel and witnesses on the following matter: 24 SQUARE. 94607 AT Law STREET 451-2124 CA 25. Defendants are precluded from entering into evidence: 7 LONDON ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, (510) & 413 26 W JACK Wonc 27. 28 1 [MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI-ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT ‘PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS ; BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Liu v.Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000- , i. Any documents or testimony tegarding documents, which have noi been produced by | ; Defendant in response to proper Request for Production of Document pursuant to. WN WwW California Code of Civil Procedure EC. C.P”) §2031, 010 et seq.; - BR 2. Any documents or testimony; regarding documents which have not been identified ini nN . answers to form or special interrogatories pursuant to C.C.P §2030.010 et seq. and, : N . 3. Any documents or testimony regarding documents whicli have not been introduced as: os an exhibit to a deposition of witnesses therein. 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. Plaintiff further moves this Court]. - | 1 - to order. the parties, their counsel and witnesses which partiés intend to callthat they be awareof 12°}. . this order and that counsel shall warnl and caution each and every one of said witnesses to comply 13 with this Court’s order. Any such question or comment regarding the documents, answers or this 14 15 motion, either directly or indirectly, would violate the rules of discovery and evidence, or would 16 be highly improper and prejudicial to Plaintiff. Even if the Court were to sustain an objection to = 17. “the introduction of such evidence and properly instruct the jury to disregard such fact, the effect | 18 would nonetheless be irreversible and extremely prej udicial to the Plaintiff, 19 Defendants make this motion pursuant to Evidence Code §352 on the grounds that the 20 - evidence sought to be excluded is far more prejudicial than probative of any issues legally 21 relevant to this case, and that it will confuse the issues, mislead the jury and waste time. 22 23 This Motion is based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities .: ASSOCIATES 24 SQUARE and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be present to the Court at the time of the ~ 94607 LAW STREET 451-2124 AT CA 25 LONDON ATTORNEYS hearing on this matter prior to trial. THIRD OAKLAND, (310) & 413 26 -WoNnG JACK -27 28 | 2. ~ [MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’ S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT ' PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS ‘NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF - Liu v.Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000 Respectfully Submitted, . DATED: WONG & ASSOCIATES ‘Aaron Yu“ Attorney for Plaintiff. . Li Zhu Liu 10 ae “12 13 “15 16 “17 ig) 19 20 | 21 22 2B . ASSOCIATES 24 | | SQUARE 94607 LAW STREET 451-2124 25 AT CA LONDON “ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, (510) & 26 413 JACK WonG 27 - 28 [MIL1] PLAINTIFF LIZHU LIU’ siMOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT ; PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR’ DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS _BY. DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF - bi v.Bianchi etal, Case No. RG13704000 MEMORANDUM OFF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT: THEREOF oL INTRODUCTION |. This lawsuit arises out of a property damage claim, Plaintiff Li Zhu Liu (“Plaintiff”) claimed that her property located at 1720-1722 46h Avenue, Oakland, California has been’ . damaged due to a fire from Defendants Alfred Bianchi and Lois Bianchi’ S (hereinafter NID collectively “Defendants”) property located adjacent from Plaintif’s property. os | ns STATEMENTS OF FACT , Oo . On December 29, 2013, at approximately 8:00AM, firebroke out atDefendants’ property Oo 10 located at 4601 Foothill Boulevard, Oakland, California. The fire spread to the surrounding area 11 . and caused significant damage to Plaintiff's property located at 1720-1722 46" Avenue, Oakland, 12 California, which 1isadjacent to Defendants property. Oakland Fite Department’ sfire.report - 13 stated that the fire started from Defendants’ property byaa transient who gained access into 14 15 Defendants’ property. 16 Immediately following the incident, Plaintiff,Ethrough her previous counsel, attempted 17 |.numerous times to contact Defendants for theiriinsurance ‘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 prévious counsel. Shortly thereafter, counsels for both parties withdrew and the matter was 22 23 - continued for a period while both parties sought new counsel. ASSOCIATES . - Plaintiff retained Wong & Associated in May of 2016, while Defendants remained in Pro. SQUARE 24 94607 AT LAW STREET 451-2124 CA 25 LONDON ATTORNEYS Per. The Honorable Judge Freedman continued that matter several times to provide Defendant an | . THIRD OAKLAND, (810) & 26 413 JACK WonG opportunity to retain counsel andifor the parties to mediate the case. Defendants failed to obtain . 27, . 28 4 ~ [MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU. LIU’ S| MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS ‘BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED erie: AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF . ; . Liuv. Bianchi etal., ‘CaseNo. RG13704000 . counsel and failed to participate in mediation, and Judge Freedman ordered the matter set for trial N. “on December 2, 2016. we -On- January 12, 2017; Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Special . & . Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admission. - On Jaranuary ws 25, , Defendant filed what appeared to-be a proposed judgment. On J anuary 31,»Plainsift sent Defendant an Amended Notice of Depesiion for Defendant’s deposition onn March 3, 2017. ~ Defendant did not comply with discovery requests, and- did not appear at her. deposition. On March 21, 2017, the Honorable J udge Herbert granted Plaintiff? s Motion to Compel =e _ 10 . and ordered Defendant to comply with all Plaintiff's written discoveries no later than March 30, : “41 2017. The furthermore, the Court ordered Defendant totappear at her deposition on 1March 27, 12 2017, and allow Plaintiff to inspect’ the real property on Maich 38, 2017. On March 27, 2017, the 13, 4 Defendant failed to appear at Department 20 of the Alameda County Courthouse. The Honorable 15 judge Herbert called the Defendant via telephone on the record with Plaintiff's counsel present 16 Defendant promised to appear for her deposition on Thursday, March 30, 2017. Defendant did VW not appear on March 30, and informed the judge she did not believe she needed to comply with | 1s the order or the discovery requests'and that she had provided her swom testimony that she had . 19 won. 20-7. 21 22 UI. LEGAL ARGUMENTS +23 A. A Motion in Limine is Proper to Exclude Irrelevant, Inadmissible, Time Consuming - or Prejudicial Evidence or to Seek a Ruling Admitting Relevant Evidence. ASSOCIATES. ** .- SQUARE 24 94607 AT LAW STREET 451-2124 A motion in limine is useful to determine i issues at the beginning of.trialthat might - CA LONDON 25 ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, (510) WONG& ; otherwise disrupt or prolong the proceedings. People v.Morris (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 152, 188: 191. 26 413 JACK ___ 27 - Motions in limine may be used to obtain rulings itin advance of trial that particular evidence i is ’ 5 28 [MIL1]} PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’ S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT © PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Liu v. Bianchi etal, Case No. RG13704000 | admissible or inadmissible. See, e.g., People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal. 34963, 975; Pugh v. ‘See’s Candies, Inc. (1988) 203 Cal. App.3d 743, 757. Moreover, the burden iison the objecting _party to )request the admission orr exclusion of evidence, Abbett Electric Corp. v. Sullwold (1987). _ 193 Cal.App.3d 708. The Cou in itsdiscretion may exclude evidence if itsprobative value is th . substantially outweighed by the probability that its submission will create a substantial danger of | undue prejudice to other partes California Evidence Code 5352 In this instant matter, , Defendants may seek to introduce documents or testimony related to documents that Defendant has not previously produced iniresponse to proper requests for. 10 production of documents pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031 et seq.; or Ay documents, or testimony related to documents, which have not been identified inianswers to form ; ‘12. , ce an or special interrogatories pursuant to California’ Code of Civil Procedure § 2030 et seq.: or 2B - documents or testimony regarding.documents which have not been introduced as an exhibit toa 14 “15 deposition of the witnesses therein. 16 | B. “Defendants Should be Excluded from Using Any Document Not Previously Produced. ; . oo 17° The introduction of documentary evidence «ortestimony related to documentary evidence, - “18 “19 which has not produced would be highly prejudicial to-Plaintiff and should be excluded under 20 - California Evidence Code 5 352. 21 The court in its discretion my exclude evidence if itsprobative value is substantially outweighed by.the probability that tis 22 | admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or - 23 (b) create substantial danger of undue. prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading: ‘the jury: j 24 ‘ASSOCIATES, . - SQUARE 94607 ATLAW STREET 451-2124 Defendants have previously defied the rules of discovery and evidence in refusing to _ 25 | : 7 CA LONDON ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, (510) & 6. . ‘respond and produce the documents to the Plaintiff which resulted in the Plaintiff filing a motion. 413 JACK WonG .to compel, in which Defendants disregarded the Order by the court compelling discovery. _ 28 [MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’ S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT |. PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS . BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF , Liu v:Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000 7 California courts have barred the ‘introduction of evidence and/or testimony inccases . where the abuse of discovery does not rewch the level of misuse observed iin this case. In the case of Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal. App.3d 241, the court upheld the trial.court’s sexclusion. from evidence of a tape recording which one party had failed to identify and/or produce in response to timely interrogatories and request for production of documents. The court opined that allowing nN - the introduction of such evidence would unfairly surprise and prevent proper preparation for trial. ~ |. Id. at3 PP. 254-255. io) In Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal. App, 4th 1525 the court tupheld the trialcourt’s ‘0 \o preclusion into evidence of documents that were not produced iinresponse toa timely and duly - asl served request for production of documents. In ruling, the appellate court quoted the trial court’s 12 admonition of the misuse of the discovery process: 1B It was‘a total reprehensible violation of the court’s rules, “14 practices and policies for a litigant to withhold 15 documentation thatis the subject of discovery and then — surprisingly and unexplainably. find them during trial.° 16 .Id. atp- 1543. 17 _ Plaintiff has given ample time for Defendants to response to propounded discoveries, in 18 19 which Defendants has refused. Defendants have also refused to Court Order requiring - 20 Defendants to respond. Plaintiff has attempted inigood faith to request documents from 21 Defendants, but Defendants have refused.and failed-and continues to refuse and fail to produce. 22 - Therefore, the Court should not allow Defendants to produce any documents during trialthat could create undue prejudice to Plaintiffs and prolong trial proceeding. ASSOCIATES SQUARE 24 94607 LAW STREET 451-2124 IV. CONCLUSION AT CA LONDON 25 ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND; (510) & 26. 413 JACK WONG 27 | 28 7. . [MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’ SMOTION IN.LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS bNOT | _ PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR DOCUMENTS: NOT IDENTIFIED.IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATOREIS _ BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Liu vy. Bianchi etal.,Case No. RG13704000 -For reasons stated above, Plaintiff requests this Court to exclude the use of documents not --previously produced or documents not identified in answers to interrogatories by Defendants, which are misleading and/or prejudicial. Respectfully Submitted, DB “DATED: April - =. -, 2017 WONG & ASSOCIATES - NI Co 0. 10 “Aaron Yu. : 11 Attorney for Plaintiff - LiZhu Liu 12 13. 14 AS, 16 17 18 19 20 | 21 22 23 ASSOCIATES © 24 |. SQUARE 94607 LAW — STREET 451-2124 AT CA LONDON 25 ATTORNEYS THIRD OAKLAND, (510) & 413 JACK WONG 27 28 ([MIL1] PLAINTIFF LI ZHU LIU’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE USE OF DOCUMENTS NOT PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR: DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO.INTERROGATOREIS ~ BY DEFENDANTS ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Liu v,Bianchi etal.,Case No.». RG13704000 :