Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV11090, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11090    Hearing Date: February 7, 2024    Dept: 72

Gallegos v. Emanate Health Medical Center

23STCV11090

Tentative Rulings 2/7/2024

A.      Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine

1.       Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1:  Granted.  Plaintiff will be permitted to ask jurors in voir dire if they are able to award “millions” in damages if the evidence supports it.  (The motion provides no more specific number so no more specific number is permitted by this order.)  Likewise, the parties may inquire whether the juror is able to award no damages if the evidence supports such an award.

2.       Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2:  Denied.  Defendant is permitted to put on brief evidence of its non-profit status as basic identifying information.

3.       Plaintiff’s MIL No. 3:  Denied.  Plaintiff’s decision to leave a previous hospital against medical advice may be relevant to issues of causation and damages.

4.       Plaintiff’s MIL No. 4:  Denied.  While the Court will not allow either party to offer duplicative expert testimony at trial, the motion in limine does not provide a reliable means for the Court to determine that particular testimony would be duplicative.

5.       Plaintiff’s MIL No. 5:  Granted on agreement of the parties.  Defendant shall not put on expert testimony based on the generalized expert designations listed by Plaintiff in his motion.

6.       Plaintiff’s MIL No. 6:  Granted on agreement of the parties.  Defendant shall not put on testimony of the use of Plaintiff’s call light prior to his fall.

B.      Defendant’s Motions In Limine

1.       Defendant’s MIL No. 1:  Granted on agreement of the parties.  Plaintiff shall not put on evidence of Defendant’s financial condition or liability insurance.

2.       Defendant’s MIL No. 2:  Granted.  Plaintiff shall not put on testimony opining that Defendant violated a regulation or statute.  To the extent Plaintiff wishes to do so, he must bring the issue to the Court’s attention outside the presence of the jury.

3.       Defendant’s MIL No. 3:  Granted based on the partial agreement of the parties.  Plaintiff shall not put on evidence of deficiencies or citations stemming from annual surveys or from investigation from the Department of Public Health having nothing to do with Plaintiff or the facts of this case.

4.       Defendant’s MIL No. 4:  Granted on agreement of the parties.  Plaintiff shall not put on evidence  or make reference to payment of medical and para-medical expenses that are in excess of the amount actually paid.

5.       Defendant’s MIL No. 5:  Granted on agreement of the parties.  Plaintiff shall not put on evidence or make reference to any other lawsuit, claim, or complaint concerning Defendant other than the events at issue in this lawsuit.

6.       Defendant’s MIL No. 6:  Denied.  Such questioning of potential jurors will be permitted in accordance with the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1.

7.       Defendant’s MIL No. 7:  Denied.  The motion about statements of lay witnesses is too broadly stated to allow the Court to rule on it at the in limine stage.

8.       Defendant’s MIL No. 8:  Granted in part as follows.  Neither party shall make arguments that the jurors should use the verdict to send a message to society or that the jury should step into the shoes of Plaintiff.  Except as so ordered, the Court denies the motion as too vague to be ruled on at the in limine stage.

9.       Defendant’s MIL No. 9:  Denied.  Violations of policy and procedure may be relevant to issues in this case.

10.   Defendant’s MIL No. 10:  Denied.  While the Court expects to enforce the rules of evidence relating to treatises and textbooks, the motion is too general to be ruled on at the in limine stage.  Among other things, it does not seem to be directed at any particular anticipated testimony.

11.   Defendant’s MIL No. 11:  :  Denied.  While the Court expects to enforce the rules relating to opinions not disclosed by experts at their depositions, the motion is too general to be ruled on at the in limine stage.  Among other things, it does not seem to be directed at any particular anticipated testimony.

12.   Defendant’s MIL No. 12:  Granted on agreement of the parties.  Neither party shall offer expert testimony other than those based on a reasonable degree of medical probability.

13.   Defendant’s MIL No. 13:  Granted on agreement of the parties.  Neither party shall offer expert testimony as to whether any conduct at issue is malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent as defined in Civil Code section 3294.

14.   Defendant’s MIL No. 14:  Granted on agreement of the parties.  Neither party shall inform juror or potential jurors of the actual or possible limitations imposed by MICRA to the case or any cause of action within the case.

15.   Defendant’s MIL No. 15:  Denied.  This motion about cumulative photographs is too general for the Court to rule on at the motion in limine stage.

16.   Defendant’s MIL No. 16:  Granted in part as follows.  The Court will exclude all non-party witnesses except that Plaintiff may designate one of his adult sons to be present throughout the trial.

17.   Defendant’s MIL No. 17:  Granted.  Plaintiff shall not put on evidence or argument about the existence or non-existence of an incident report.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

18.   Defendant’s MIL No. 18:  Denied.  Defendant’s motion is too general for the Court to rule on at the motion in limine stage.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

19.   Defendant’s MIL No. 19:  Denied.  Defendant’s motion does not provide grounds to exclude witness testimony quoted in the motion.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.