Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 19STCV39278, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39278    Hearing Date: August 22, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

            According to the parties’ August 17, 2022 Joint Trial Plan, only Familian Corporation and Ferguson Enterprises, LLC remain as defendants.  Therefore, the Court addresses below only the motions brought by Plaintiffs and those two defendants.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of the decedent’s smoking history as irrelevant and prejudicial.  Defendants did not file an opposition.

            The motion is granted except as to life expectancy and damages.  The evidence may be relevant to those issues.

            The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

Plaintiffs move to exclude derogatory comments against Plaintiffs’ counsel.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and granted.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Therefore, the motion is granted.

Defendants’ MIL Nos. 1, 20, 21

            Defendants move to exclude evidence that Defendants were major suppliers of asbestos-containing products and evidence of sales of other products.  Defendants filed this motion four times, as an unnumbered motion and as No. 1, No. 20, and No. 21. 

As to Defendants being major suppliers, the motion is too vague.  Regarding sales of other products, it is unclear what this refers to or how it would arise.  The motion is too vague.

Defendants should object to improper questions about these topics at trial.  The motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL Nos. 2, 22

            Defendants seek to exclude evidence that they are held to the standard of an expert.  Defendants filed this motion twice.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL Nos. 3, 23

Defendants seek to exclude evidence of post-sale failures to warn.  Defendants filed this motion three times, as an unnumbered motion and as Nos. 3 and 23.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 15

            This motion seeks to exclude excerpts from the depositions of James Reichert.  Objections to deposition testimony designated by another party should be handled via the process for designating and objection to deposition testimony set out in the CMO, not via a motion in limine.  The motion states the objectionable excerpts were not designated.  If another party does not designate the excerpts, then there is no need to object. 

            The motion is denied.  Defendants should object if Plaintiffs designate these excerpts.

Defendants’ MIL Nos. 16, 17, 18

These motions seek to exclude various documents Defendants contend are.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, these motions are deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order.  If a party seeks to admit one of these documents at trial, Defendants can object at that time.

            The motions are denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 19

Defendants seek an order requiring Plaintiffs to disclose the amount of prior settlements and identify prior settlements.  Defendants filed this motion twice, once as an unnumbered motion and once as No. 19.  This is not a proper motion in limine.  A motion in limine is to exclude evidence.  If the issue is about offsets in the event of a verdict for Plaintiffs, then after that verdict, the trial court will handle the matter of offsets.

The motion is denied. 

Defendants’ MIL Re Duty to Inspect

Defendants move to exclude evidence or argument that a seller of products had a post-sale duty to investigate and test the products they sold.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

The moving party is to give notice.