Judge Gregory W. Alarcon, Case Number: 20STCV47090, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory W. Alarcon, Case: 20STCV47090, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47090 Hearing Date: April 4, 2025 Dept: 96

20STCV47090

RUZANNA AGAZARIAN vs MARINE ELIKUCHKYAN

The Court has read and considered the following motions in limine and oppositions and will rule as follows:

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 exclude collateral source.

Denied as if used to determine a reasonably necessary medical care that Plaintiff is reasonably certain to need in the future. CACI 3903A. Evidence 210, 352.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 Exclude Evidence Not Identified or Produced.

Denied. Meet and Confer and Object at trial. LASC Rule 3.57(a).

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 exclude expert opinions not given at deposition.

Denied. Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App. 4^th 659, 672.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 exclude undesignated experts (William Seth Bolling)

Denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion in limine No.5 exclude improper expert opinion re causation.

Denied. Evidence Code Section 210, 352.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude expert related hearsay (Sanchez).

Denied. Object at trial.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude cross examination of expert based on material not considered.

Denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No.8 to exclude expert reports.

Denied. No meet and confer. Object at trial.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 9 to exclude sub rosa evidence.

Denied based on Defense counsel’s representation that “Defendant does currently does not intend to introduce any sub rosa evidence as part of its case-in-chief. However, if warranted, defendant could use such a video as impeachment. Defendant will show plaintiff the video if he intends to use it prior to showing it to the jury.” (Defendant’s Opposition, page 2)

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 10 to exclude expert designation scope.

Denied. No meet and confer. Object at trial. Counsel is to provide the Court with the deposition testimony of the expert and the expert designation so the Court can rule on any objections at trial.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 11 asking for 24-hour notice re witnesses.

Denied. Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4^th 659, 671.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 12 to exclude police reports and opinions re causation.

Denied. Meet and confer. Object at trial.

Defendant’s Motions in Limine

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude referring to Plaintiff as a “victim” and accusing Defendant of “failing to take responsibility.”

Granted. Evidence Code Section 210, 352

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude “reptile theory” evidence.

Granted. The Court excludes any mention of dollar amounts during jury selection, including Plaintiff’s counsel asking for any dollar amount in the mini-opening statement. This is preconditioning and violates the Court’s rules and the entire purpose of excluding dollar amounts in jury selection, which violated the rule of creating an anchor bias. CCP Section 225.b(3).

The Court will scrutinize counsel asking leading questions in voir dire to a jury as opposed to open ended questions geared more to learning about the jurors’ attitudes and beliefs rather than trying to precondition them to a certain result.

Further, the Court will exclude any questions which seek to focus the jury on one element of unproven non-economic damages (for example “loss of enjoyment of life, anxiety, or depression”) and ask whether they can award for that attorney highlighted element of non-economic damages. CCP Section 225.b(3)

Further, the Court will exclude the Golden Rule question from counsel “If you were in my position (an attorney seeking or preventing monetary compensation in an adversarial jury trial), would you want someone like yourself to sit on the jury” which essentially asks the question whether they can be an advocate for one side and answer whether they would be a good advocate for that side which is inconsistent with a jurors’ role. CACI 112: “Remember that you are not an advocate for one side or the other. Each of you is an impartial judge of the facts.”

Further, the Court excludes asking jurors “after hearing the mini-opening statement, which side or you on, my side or my opponent’s side or if we were at the starting line, would I be a few feet ahead or a few feet behind?” As Plaintiff stated in their own papers asking for a mini-opening statement the purpose is not to prejudice a jury into taking one side or another before the jury has heard any evidence.

Further, on the Court’s own motion, the Court also exclude the following arguments: 1) the “want ad” argument and/or 2) the “job offer” argument, or the “fair trade” argument that encourages jurors to put themselves in Plaintiff’s position which are variations on the improper Golden Rule/Reptile style arguments. See Neumann v. Bishop (1976) 59 Cal. App. 3d 451, 484.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude unpaid medical bills that aren’t compliant with Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal. 4^th 541, 555, amounts.

Granted. CACI 3903A.