Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 24STCV31245, Date: 2025-06-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV31245    Hearing Date: June 9, 2025    Dept: 14

Pentzer v. 3M Company  24STCV31245

Rulings on Motions in Limine

Defendants’ Motions in Limine

            1. Defendant DCo’s MIL no. 1:  To exclude “every exposure,” “no safe dose,” or “single fiber” testimony.

Denied.  This motion is too vague. Defendant fails to identify the specific matter alleged to be inadmissible and prejudicial, or any specific expert testimony to be excluded. The motion thus does not comply with Los Angeles County Court Rule 3.57. Defendant’s argument is that Plaintiff lacks the evidence to impose liability on it, and seeks to preclude certain words or phrases from being uttered by counsel. What lawyers say is not evidence; the jury will be instructed on what evidence is. Denial of this motion does not preclude the trial court from sustaining a specific objection.  

In addition, the motion would exclude arguments about the standard for proving causation and what “substantial factor” means.  Under the July 8, 2022 Case Management Order (CMO), motions to exclude expert opinion about the term “substantial factor” are deemed made and denied without prejudice to objections at trial.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order. 

2. Defendant Federal Mogul’s MIL no. 1: To preclude mention or evidence of the name of Defendant Trust.

Denied. Defendant Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust seeks to preclude the mention of its name because it exists solely to litigate asbestos cases concerning Fel-Pro products, and, it maintains, the name is prejudicial. The Federal-Mogul Trust argues it has no products and has never made any products including those alleged to be involved in this matter or otherwise. “Fel-Pro gaskets, not the Trust, are alleged to be a cause of Plaintiff’s asbestos-related disease, and the only name that should be produced to the jury is Fel-Pro or Felt Products Manufacturing Company.” It maintains that referring to it by its name “deprives it of any meaningful defenses.”

Plaintiff argues that it is not necessary for the Trust to have manufactured a product to incur liability, and that the Federal-Mogul Trust’s argument of prejudice fails to state the proper standard.

The Federal-Mogul Trust will not be denied a “meaningful defense” and its witness can explain its origin and purpose. The jury will be instructed to decide the issue of liability based on the evidence. Permitting a party to choose to avoid being called by its actual name in trial is likely to cause confusion and be misleading. The purposes of Evidence Code section 352 militate in favor of denying the motion, not granting it.

3. Defendant Pneumo Abex’s MIL no. 1: To exclude data from 1937 Saranac Laboratory experiment.

Granted.  This motion is deemed granted under the July 8, 2022 Case Management Order.

4. Defendant Pneumo Abex’s MIL no. 2: To preclude references to Pneumo Abex asbestos claims settlement trust.

Granted.  Defendant Pneumo Abex argues that “identifying Abex as being related to the Trust, which exists in part to settle and pay potential asbestos claimants, would deprive Abex of any meaningful defenses and would render the recovery of a claim essentially automatic by the jury – the only issue being the size of the award.” Plaintiffs “do not anticipate referencing the Pneumo Abex Asbestos Claims Settlement Trust by name during the trial,” unless Pneumo Abex does so first. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion. Moreover, pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to exclude evidence of the bankruptcy of an alleged tortfeasor not present at trial is deemed made and granted. Pneumo Abex, by this motion, does not seek to exclude the admission of any specific documents that mention the Pneumo Abex Asbestos Claims Settlement Trust, and this ruling does not address that circumstance.

5. Defendants Pneumo Abex and DCo’s MIL no. 3: to exclude 1986 EPA “Gold Book.”

Denied. Defendants seek to exclude evidence of a 1986 document prepared by the EPA referred to as the Gold Book because a 2007 EPA publication replaced it and it is hearsay.  Plaintiffs argue that the document is admissible under Evidence Code section 1280 and may be relied upon by experts and in certain circumstances, related to the jury. 

The document could be relevant to Defendants’ notice of the dangers of asbestos.  If Plaintiffs seek to use the document to show notice or knowledge, the documents may not be hearsay if it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.  Also, the contents of the document may be admissible at trial via an expert if the expert establishes that it is general background information of the type relied upon by experts in the field.  If Defendants contest the validity of the document’s sources, that can be the subject of cross-examination and goes to the weight to be given the document and whether an expert can establish it is the type of information relied upon by experts. Denial of this motion does not preclude the trial court from sustaining a specific objection.

6. Defendant Pneumo Abex’s MIL no. 4: to exclude EPA’s “Don’t Blow It” video.

Denied. Defendant moves to exclude the “Don’t Blow It” video and any evidence referring to the video as hearsay, unscientific, and prejudicial. Plaintiffs argue that the video is relevant on several grounds, is admissible under Evidence Code sections 1280 and 1341, not unfairly prejudicial, and may be relied upon by experts. 

Some or all of the video may be admissible at trial via an expert if the expert establishes that it is general background information of the type relied upon by experts in the field.  The claim that the video is unscientific can be the subject of cross-examination and goes to the weight to be given the video.  Defendant contends the EPA updated its guidance in 2007 so the video is outdated.  That too can be the subject of cross-examination. Denial of this motion does not preclude the trial court from sustaining a specific objection or determining that any particular portion is irrelevant or excludable under Evidence Code section 352.

7. Defendant Pneumo Abex’s MIL no. 5:  To preclude use of testimony against a party unless designated in the list of former testimony.

Denied.  This motion fails to identify the specific matter alleged to be inadmissible and prejudicial; it thus does not comply with Los Angeles County Court Rule 3.57.  Moreover, it would preclude admissible impeachment evidence.  Denial of this motion does not preclude the trial court from sustaining a specific objection.

8. Joint defense MIL: To exclude evidence regarding the number of defense attorneys and defense costs.

Denied to the extent it is limited to one side.  The jury will see the number of parties and attorneys in the case. The trial court will exclude any reference to the fees and rates of the attorneys in the case for either side because it is irrelevant.

9. Joint defense MIL:  To preclude evidence regarding fiber drift theory.

Denied.  Defendants seek to preclude such evidence as speculative and unreliable, although they do not identify any specific deposition testimony or report from any Plaintiff witness. This motion fails to identify the specific matter alleged to be inadmissible and prejudicial; it thus does not comply with Los Angeles County Court Rule 3.57.  Moreover, under the July 8, 2022 CMO, motions in limine to exclude “speculative,” or “unsubstantiated” evidence are deemed denied. Denial of this motion does not preclude the trial court from sustaining a specific objection.

10. Joint defense MIL: To preclude opinion testimony of lay witnesses regarding asbestos content of products. 

Denied.  Under the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed denied.

11. Joint defense MIL:  To preclude discovery from prior asbestos litigation.

Denied. This motion fails to identify the specific matter alleged to be inadmissible and prejudicial, or any specific expert testimony to be excluded. The motion thus does not comply with Los Angeles County Court Rule 3.57.  Defendants’ reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.410 is misguided; the statute permits the use of interrogatory responses against the responding party. Interrogatory responses and deposition testimony is often received in litigation, subject to proper foundation.  Denial of this motion does not preclude the trial court from sustaining a specific objection.