Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 19STCV19227, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV19227    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 12

            Plaintiffs move to preclude comments made by Dr. Selikoff at a 1969 symposium about brake linings not being a hazard as hearsay.  If Defendant’s expert establishes the comments were the type of material upon which experts in the field reasonably rely, the comments may be admissible.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 13

            Plaintiffs move to exclude Supreme Court rulings on OSHA standards, including 448 U.S. 607 which was about benzene, as more prejudicial than probative.  While benzene is not at issue in this case, this motion is too vague with regard to other rulings.  For example, a ruling about OSHA standards for asbestos exposure could be relevant to notice or knowledge.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 14

            No motion was filed.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 15

            Plaintiffs move to preclude arguments that Defendant complied with government safety standards as more prejudicial than probative.  Plaintiffs argue that satisfying standards on safety is irrelevant to the issue of a defect.  However, Plaintiffs also assert a negligence cause of action and seek punitive damages.  Compliance with safety standards could be relevant in those regards.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 16

            Plaintiffs move to preclude argument “that any Defendant is not held to the knowledge and skill of an expert, is not obligated to keep abreast of any scientific discoveries, is not presumed to know results of such advances, and/ or does not bear a duty to fully test its products.”  This motion is too vague.  It does not identify any specific evidence to be excluded.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 17

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence that the decedent smoked.  The motion is granted as to argument that smoking evidence is relevant to failure to warn claims.  Smoking cigarettes (which are highly addictive) is not similar to working with or using asbestos-containing products (unlikely to be highly addictive), such that the evidence has any probative value regarding whether the decedent would have followed warnings about products containing asbestos. 

            The motion is otherwise denied as the evidence may be relevant the decedent’s life expectancy.

            The motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to objections at trial.

            The moving party is to give notice.