Case Number:
19STCV19227
Hearing Date:
January 17, 2023
Dept:
15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiffs MIL No. 12
Plaintiffs move to preclude comments made by Dr. Selikoff at a 1969 symposium about brake linings not being a hazard as hearsay.
If Defendants expert establishes the comments were the type of material upon which experts in the field reasonably rely, the comments may be admissible.
The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Plaintiffs MIL No. 13
Plaintiffs move to exclude Supreme Court rulings on OSHA standards, including 448 U.S. 607 which was about benzene, as more prejudicial than probative.
While benzene is not at issue in this case, this motion is too vague with regard to other rulings.
For example, a ruling about OSHA standards for asbestos exposure could be relevant to notice or knowledge.
The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial
Hearing Date
January 17, 2023
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Case Number:
19STCV19227
Hearing Date:
January 17, 2023
Dept:
15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiffs MIL No. 12
Plaintiffs move to preclude comments made by Dr. Selikoff at a 1969 symposium about brake linings not being a hazard as hearsay.
If Defendants expert establishes the comments were the type of material upon which experts in the field reasonably rely, the comments may be admissible.
The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Plaintiffs MIL No. 13
Plaintiffs move to exclude Supreme Court rulings on OSHA standards, including 448 U.S. 607 which was about benzene, as more prejudicial than probative.
While benzene is not at issue in this case, this motion is too vague with regard to other rulings.
For example, a ruling about OSHA standards for asbestos exposure could be relevant to notice or knowledge.
The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial