Judge: H. Chester Horn, Jr., Case: 20STCV33021, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV33021    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: I

GEORGETTE EDISON v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

20STCV33021

Tentative Rulings Regarding MILs

Plaintiff’s No. 1 – Exclude Nurse Gallagher’s Testimony RE: Standard of Care as Cumulative

               The Court will deny this motion.  Nurse Gallagher and Nurse Tarver’s Deposition Testimony dealt with different with standard of care issues regarding the conduct of different parties and is therefore not cumulative.

Defendant’s No. 1 – Regarding MICRA Limitations

               The Court will deny this motion in so far as it asks the Court to enforce Civil Code secs. 1431.2 and 3333.2.  This is an improper basis for an in limine motion.

               The Court will reserve ruling on the motion is so far as seeks to prevent the plaintiff from granting a stay of enforcement of judgment if necessary to give the plaintiff time to consider whether she wishes to request such a stay if she secures a judgment.

Defendant’s No. 2 – Exclude Evidence Not Produced in Discovery

               The Court will deny this motion as defendant has not shown that the plaintiff failed to respond to an order to provide further response to any form of discovery.  [See, C.C.P. secs. 2025.480(K), 2025.450(h), 2030.290(c), and 2031.310(i).

Defendant’s No. 3 – Limit Expert Testimony

               The Court will reserve ruling on this motion until trial.  The Court cannot rule in the abstract whether testimony that may differ from an expert’s opinion stated at a deposition is inadmissible as a matter of law.

Defendant’s No. 4 – Preclude Cumulative Expert and Lay Opinions

               The Court will reserve ruling on this motion until trial.  The Court cannot rule in the abstract whether testimony of expert opinions and lay opinions are cumulative without hearing the specific testimony.

Defendant’s No. 5 – Limit Cross-examination of Witnesses

               Defendant asks the Court to prevent plaintiff from calling defendant’s experts to testify during the plaintiff’s presentation of her evidence and to limit the cross-examination of experts to maters raised on the direct examination of those experts.  The Court will grant the first aspect of this motion as it was not opposed buy the defendant.  The Court will reserve ruling as to the propriety of the cross-examination of defendant’s experts.  The Court notes that the cross-examination of experts for both parties will be governed by Evidence Code sec. 721.

Defendant’s No. 6 – Preclude Improper Direct examination of Experts re: Source Material

               The Court will reserve ruling on this motion until trial.  The Court notes that experts may testify to the reasons supporting their opinions and cite the authority for those opinions.  Experts may not recite in detail excerpts from those authorities.

Defendant’s No. 7 – Preclude Dollar Amounts of damages During Voir Dire

               The Court will grant this motion in part and deny it in part.  The Court will preclude plaintiff from telling the jury specific amounts of damages she seeks to recover during the voir dire process.  She may ask jurors if they have any limits on damages that would preclude them from being fair n the deliberation process.

Defendant’s No. 8 – Preclude Arguments Based on the Reptilian Theory

               Deny.  The Court will not permit counsel to examine prospective jurors concerning their willingness to award damages as a means of protecting the community or enforcing community standards of conduct.

Defendant’s No. 9 – Exclude Evidence of “Amounts Billed,” or the Reasonable Value for Past Meds

               The Court will deny this motion in part.  The full amount billed for past medical services is admissible if the plaintiff has actually incurred liability for those bills.  This is usually shown by the introduction of lien agreements covering those bills. In the absence of evidence  regarding lien agreements, only the reasonable value of past medical services may be recovered and the full billed amounts are not relevant to that determination.  In addition, the full amount billed may  is not admissible if the provider accepted and was paid a lesser amount.  [Corenbaum at 1328.]

Defendant’s No. 10 – Preclude Use of Past Billed Amounts for Medical Services to Support Claims for Future Medical Services

               The Court will grant this motion.  Corenbaum prohibits the use of amounts billed for past medical services to support opinions regarding the reasonable value of future medical services.  [Corenbaum at 1331.]

Defendant’s No. 11 – Preclude Use of Arguments Re: Res Ipsa Loquitor

               The Court has not seen an opposition so the Court will reserve ruling to give the plaintiff a chance to inform the Court whether this motion is opposed.