Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV05694, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05694    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: 55

Tentative on Plaintiff's MIL

Plaintiff’s MIL Nos. 1-6

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1 -The motion in limine is not specific enough for the Court to make a meaningful order. Instead of identifying the specific evidence that the motion seeks to exclude, this motion in limine amounts to little more than a restatement of the law and general legal principles.  The moving party fails to demonstrate that there are no circumstances which would permit admission of this evidence.  The Court declines to rule on this motion in limine in a vacuum.  Accordingly, the motion in limine is DENIED.  The moving party may at trial assert an objection to the introduction of specific evidence if and when this issue arises.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2 - This is not a proper motion in limine insofar as it seeks a pretrial ruling that certain evidence is relevant (and presumably, admissible) under all circumstances.  As with all evidence, the moving party will have to lay an adequate foundation at trial prior to its admission.  The motion in limine is DENIED without prejudice for the moving party to offer this evidence at trial after laying an adequate foundation.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 3- This is not a motion in limine as it does not seek exclusion or limitation of any evidence. Rather, the moving party seeks an order precluding Defendant from making certain arguments or from unnamed witnesses providing certain testimony based on documents not produced in discovery.  The motion in limine here is not specific enough for the Court to make a meaningful order.  The motion fails to identify what specific evidence the moving party seeks to exclude, for example, any document listed on Defendant’s exhibit list. The motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 4 is deferred because the parties have stipulated for the Brandt fees to be determined in a bench trial after the conclusion of the jury trial.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 5 - This is not a proper motion in limine insofar as it seeks a pretrial ruling that certain testimony is admissible under all circumstances.  As with all evidence, the moving party will have to lay an adequate foundation at trial prior to its admission.  The motion in limine is DENIED without prejudice for the moving party to offer this evidence at trial after laying an adequate foundation.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 6 This is not a proper motion in limine insofar as it seeks a pretrial ruling that certain statements made in pleadings are judicial admissions that should be read to the jury.  The moving party will have to lay an adequate foundation at trial for certain documents to be admitted and establish any judicial admissions. The motion in limine is DENIED without prejudice for the moving party to offer this evidence at trial after laying an adequate foundation.