Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 19STCV25294, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV25294    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL Re SB 1953 Documents

            Plaintiffs move to exclude Defendant’s SB 1953 Diagnostic Audit Questionnaires and the February 24, 1998 document entitled SB 1953 Seismic Evaluation Information Received. 

Plaintiffs first argue the documents cannot be authenticated.  If Defendant is not able to authenticate the documents at trial, Plaintiffs can object to the admission of the documents at that time.  Plaintiffs also argue the documents are hearsay, and Defendants cannot establish they are business records.  If at trial Defendants fail to establish they are business records or that they are being offered for a non-hearsay purpose, Plaintiffs can object to their admission at that time.  Finally, Plaintiffs argue the documents are prejudicial and confusing because Defendant failed to produce the documents earlier and because Defendants will use the documents to ask the jury to speculate.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied.

The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL Re Speculative Testimony

            Plaintiffs seek to preclude defense witnesses from speculating about Vazgen Kayzakian’s knowledge about asbestos.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied.  Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to depart from the CMO.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

            Defendants seek to exclude reference to a television show about a hospital in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, alleged corporate wrongdoing with the SEC and DOJ, and any other unrelated wrongdoing.

            The television show and SEC or DOJ investigations having nothing to do with asbestos.  They are irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.  Likewise, any other allegations, claims, investigations, or litigation not involving asbestos are irrelevant unduly prejudicial.  Evidence of these types of non-asbestos issue will be confusing to the jury and waste time.

            The motion is granted.

Defendants’ MIL No. 2

            Defendants move to exclude evidence of asbestos in areas of hospitals that Plaintiff did not inspect.  This motion is too vague.  Evidence that there was asbestos in other areas could be relevant to notice or knowledge.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 3

Defendants move to exclude all evidence about regulatory bans on asbestos products including foreign bans on the importation on chrysotile asbestos as hearsay, irrelevant, and confusing and misleading.

            Plaintiffs did not show that there is any evidence Defendants were aware of foreign bans on asbestos or the reasons why the foreign governments banned it.  Allowing that evidence will consume an undue amount of trial time exploring the bases for and legislative history of the foreign bans.  The evidence would have little probative value because foreign bans did not apply to workplaces in the United States and would be confusing to the jury.

            The motion to exclude evidence about US federal and state regulations is too vague.  The information is potentially relevant for the non-hearsay purpose of showing Defendants’ knowledge and notice. 

            The motion is granted as to foreign bans and otherwise denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

            The moving party is to give notice.