Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 19STCV35344, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35344    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

            Plaintiffs move to exclude all reference to exposure to products from defendants eliminated by motions for summary judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (l).  That section states no other defendant “may attempt to attribute fault to, or comment on, the absence or involvement of the defendant who was granted” summary judgment.

            Plaintiffs’ motion goes beyond section 437c, subdivision (l) by seeking to eliminate all reference to those defendants’ products.  There could be evidence that refers to or mentions other the defendants’ products and is relevant to the remaining defendants’ case (and not for attributing fault to or commenting on the defendants no longer in the case).  Without knowing the specific evidence to be excluded, the court cannot determine that it is inadmissible.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of an order from the Garlock bankruptcy case about Plaintiffs’ experts.  That order was in a different case with different parties.  The probative value is outweighed by the prejudice as well as the undue consumption of trial time it will take to explain the context of that order, the evidence presented in that other case, and the circumstances of the bankruptcy case. 

            Plaintiffs also seek to exclude the use of the phrase “junk science.”  That term is prejudicial and derogatory.  Defendants can challenge and seek to undermine Plaintiffs’ experts without using that phrase.

The motion is granted.

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

            Defendant Gould Electronics moves to exclude evidence about the products of Electrical Service Group, a former division of Gould’s predecessor.  Defendant contends evidence of those products is irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing because Plaintiffs testified the decedent never worked with those products.  This motion is too vague.  For example, a document mentioning Electrical Service Group products could be relevant to notice or knowledge about the dangers of asbestos.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.

            The moving party is to give notice.