Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV16322, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16322    Hearing Date: October 23, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1

Plaintiff Ana Kim Nguyen and cross-defendants Tracy Nguyen Le and Tammy Tat move in limine to preclude defendants Vinh Hoang Lam dba Tips & Toes Nail Bar and Amy Thu Tran from introducing or referring to evidence that was “requested in discovery, but not disclosed and/or produced at that time.”  (Notice of motion, p. 2.)

The order the motion seeks is too generic and would not provide meaningful guidance to the parties or witnesses.  A motion in limine should be denied when it seeks an order that is “not properly the subject of motions in limine … or [seeks] rulings which would merely be declaratory of existing law or would not provide any meaningful guidance for the parties or witnesses.”  (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 670 (Kelly).)  In Kelly, the Court of Appeal stated a motion in limine to “ ‘exclude any testimony of the plaintiffs which is speculative’ ” was inadequate because “[n]o factual support or argument was presented to suggest the nature and type of speculative testimony which [defendant] expected to be elicited from plaintiffs.”  (Ibid.)  The court cannot “rule in a vacuum.”  (Ibid.) 

The moving parties’ request for a generic order barring evidence not produced in discovery is improper for the reasons stated in Kelly.  Plaintiff and cross-defendants did not submit evidence showing they propounded discovery seeking specific information or documents or that defendants did not provide the requested information or documents.

The moving parties also did not comply with Local Rule 3.57(a), which provides: “Motions made for the purpose of precluding the mention or display of inadmissible and prejudicial matter in the presence of the jury must be accompanied by a declaration that includes … [s]pecific identification of the matter alleged to be inadmissible and prejudicial” and “[a] representation to the court that the subject of the motion has been discussed with opposing counsel” or opposing parties in an attempt to informally resolve the dispute.  (Local Rule 3.57(a)(1) & (2).)  The moving parties submitted no declaration in support of this motion.

Plaintiff Ana Kim Nguyen and cross-defendants Tracy Nguyen Le and Tammy Tat’s motion in limine No. 1 is denied.