Judge Joseph Lipner, Case Number: BC714741, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: BC714741, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC714741 Hearing Date: August 24, 2023 Dept: 72

Zien v. Mathoni

BC714741

Tentative Rulings on Motions In Limine

I. Defendant Cedar Sinai’s Motions In Limine (“MIL”)

Plaintiffs have stipulated to the following MIL’s: 1-3; 4 (per California Evidence Code §721); 7; 13-14; 17; 19; and 25.

Plaintiffs have stipulated to MIL 6 with the proviso that there will be no inference that the defendant has not had malpractice actions filed against them.

Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:

A. MIL 1 (stipulated): Granted. Trial attorneys shall not make reference in the presence of jurors, prospective jurors or witnesses to liability insurance coverage, insurance companies, or corporate structure or ownership of financial status of any defendant. Reasonable exceptions shall apply if a prospective juror works or worked for an insurance company.

B. MIL 2 (stipulated): Granted. There shall be no reference before the jurors or prospective jurors or witnesses to the $250,000 cap on general damages under Civil Code § 3333.2.

C. MIL 3 (stipulated): Granted. Defendants may introduce evidence of the payment of Plaintiffs’ medical expenses by collateral sources as authorized by Civil Code § 3333.1.

D. MIL 4 (stipulated): Granted. No medical texts or literature may be used in direct examination or displayed before witnesses unless the proper foundation is laid; and no medical texts may be displayed to the jury.

E. MIL 5: Denied. While the Court generally anticipates excluding opinions not expressed at deposition by the experts, the Court will only rule on fact specific issues raised at the time of trial.

F. MIL 6 (stipulated): Granted. Plaintiffs, their counsel and their witnesses shall not reference any prior or subsequent medical malpractice actions filed against Cedar Sinai, so long as there is no inference by defendants that Cedar Sinai has not had malpractice claims filed against it.

G. MIL 7 (stipulated): No party shall attempt to introduce into evidence any expert opinion by an individual who has not been designated pursuant to Civil Procedure Code § 2034.010 et seq.

H. MIL 8: Granted. No party shall reference any specific dollar amount of damages during voir dire.

I. MIL 9: Denied. The parties may raise any issue about facts not disclosed in discovery at the time of trial.

J. MIL 10: Denied. The MIL makes a legal argument about whether a hospital has an obligation to provide consent and seeks an evidentiary preclusion that is too imprecise and restrictive.

K. MIL 11: Granted. While Plaintiffs have not stipulated to this MIL, they have not filed an opposition. Plaintiffs may not argue that Dr. Mathoni was an agent or employee of Cedar Sinai.

L. MIL 12: Granted. While Plaintiffs have not stipulated to this MIL, they have not filed an opposition. Plaintiff may not offer testimony of their independent research on issues regarding medical procedures, risks of medical procedures, standard of care, or causation.

M. MIL 13: Denied. This is not a proper subject for a motion in limine.

N. MIL 14 (stipulated): Granted. By agreement of the parties, counsel shall not show the jury exhibits, photographs, graphs, charts, diagrams or any other physical or demonstrable evidence during voir dire, opening statement or trial without first showing the proposed item to all counsel at the start of the Court session in which its use is proposed.

O. MIL 15: Denied. The MIL is too vague for the court to make an in limine order.

P. MIL 16: Granted in part. Trial counsel may not read from or show deposition transcripts or objections during voir dire. If any trial counsel want to use deposition transcripts in opening, they should bring the specific request to the Court prior to opening.

Q. MIL 17 (stipulated): All counsel must inform all other counsel of the names of those witnesses who will be called on the following day at or prior to the noon break of the day preceding the scheduled appearance.

R. MIL 18: Denied. The Court cannot rule on this motion in the abstract.

S. MIL 19 (stipulated): Granted. No non-designated expert witness shall offer testimony regarding the standard of care or causation at the time of trial.

T. MIL 20: Denied. The Court cannot rule on this motion in the abstract.

U. MIL 21: Granted. Though Plaintiffs did not stipulate to this MIL, they did not file an opposition. Neither party may use the other side’s expert witnesses during their case-in-chief. Neither party may inquire into matters not raised during the direct examination of the experts.

V. MIL 22: Denied. The Court cannot rule in the abstract, and the proposed bar seems overly-broad.

W. MIL 23: Denied. The Court cannot rule in the abstract, and the proposed bar seems over-broad.

X. MIL 24: Denied. The Court cannot rule in the abstract, and the proposed bar seems over-broad.

Y. MIL 25: Denied. Though Plaintiffs have stated they stipulated to this MIL, the Court cannot rule in the abstract, and the proposed bar seems over-broad.

II. DEFENDANT DR. MATHONI’S MIL:

A. MIL 1: Denied. This is similar to Cedar Sinai’s MIL 24 and is denied for the same reasons.

B. MIL 2 (stipulated): Granted. This is similar to Cedar Sinai’s MIL 1 and is granted for the same reasons.

C. MIL 3: Denied. The authorities cited do not stand for the proposition that CACI 430 is improper.

D. MIL 4: Denied. The Court cannot rule in the abstract, and the proposed bar seems over-broad.

E. MIL 5 (stipulated): Granted. This is similar to Cedar Sinai’s MIL 2 and is granted for the same reason.

F. MIL 6: Denied. The MIL is not specific enough as to which testimony Dr. Mathoni wishes to preclude.

G. MIL 7: Granted. This is similar to Cedar Sinai’s MIL 8 and is granted for the same reasons.

H. MIL 8: While the Court generally anticipates excluding opinions not expressed at deposition by the experts, the Court will only rule on fact specific issues raised at the time of trial.