Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 20STCV07833, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07833    Hearing Date: August 1, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MILS

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

            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 far outweighed by the prejudice.  There was no opposition.  Therefore, the motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

            Plaintiffs seek to preclude reference to bankrupt entities and bankruptcy trust claims.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to preclude evidence of the bankruptcy of an alleged tortfeasor not present at trial is deemed made and granted.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order.  Therefore, the motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3

            Plaintiffs move to preclude any mention of the contents of the complaint and for the defendants no longer present and to revise the captions of documents to be shown to the jury. 

The request to exclude mention of the contents of the complaint is impossible – the trial is about the allegations in the complaint.  Therefore, this part of the motion is denied.

Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to modify the caption on documents that may be presented to the jury to refer only to defendants remaining in this case is deemed made and granted but such order does not affect any allocation of fault under Proposition 51.  Therefore, this part of the motion is granted.

That Plaintiffs sued other defendants who are no longer part of the case is not relevant, but the liability of other former defendants may be relevant.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to exclude evidence about the liability of tortfeasors not present at trial is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order.  Therefore this part of the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence or argument that asbestos was necessary to defeat enemies or win a war.  No defendant filed an opposition.  Such evidence or argument is irrelevant to the issues in dispute and would be unduly prejudicial.

Therefore, the motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5

Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of and reference to exposures to the products of former defendants.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to exclude evidence about the liability of tortfeasors not present at trial is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order. 

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

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 6

            Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence and argument that compliance with government safety standards absolves the defendant from liability as a matter of law.  Defendants did not file an opposition. 

This motion is vague.  The motion is granted to the extent it seeks to preclude attorneys from arguing to the jury about what the law is.  The trial court will instruct the jury about the law.  The motion is denied to the extent it seeks to prevent a party from arguing to the trial court about jury instructions.  The motion also seeks to preclude all evidence about Defendants’ compliance with safety standards, regulations and industry customs.  This is too general and vague.

            The motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 7

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of and reference to settlements in this case.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order. 

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

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 8

            Plaintiffs move to exclude reference to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s business and reputation.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to exclude evidence of a counsel’s status or involvement in the asbestos industry is deemed made and granted.  Here Plaintiffs are concerned about Plaintiffs’ counsel method of advertising, how Plaintiffs retained counsel, references to Plaintiffs’ counsel as “claims generators,” and references to Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with Sheldon Silver.  There was no opposition.

            Arguments about Plaintiffs’ counsel are irrelevant and prejudicial.  The motion is granted.          

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 9

            Plaintiffs seek to exclude defense expert Charles Weaver because he is not qualified to testify as an expert on memory, he does not have foundation for his opinion, his opinions are based on improper matters, and his opinions have no probative value and are more prejudicial and confusing and time consuming.  No defendant filed an opposition.

            The lack of any opposition leads to the conclusion that Defendants do not intend to call this witness as an expert at trial.  Therefore, the motion is granted.

O’Reilly MIL No. 1

            Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC served but never filed a motion to preclude reference to the Welch article and Welch amicus brief.  The motion does not appear in the court file.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO a motion to exclude “[t]he amicus brief form of the Laura S. Welch writing but not the published article form of that writing (foundation for which will need to be established at trial)” is deemed made and granted.  Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion to exclude the amicus brief and only argue about the article.

            The motion is granted as to the amicus brief but denied as to the article subject to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

O’Reilly MIL No. 2

            Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC served but never filed a motion to exclude evidence relating to the Friction Materials Standard Institute.  The motion does not appear in the court file, yet Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  This motion is too vague.  Defendant should object if and when Plaintiffs seek to use specific FMSI documents at trial.  For example, an expert might rely on a FMSI document, and such a document might be admissible if the expert establishes that it is the type of document relied upon as accurate by experts in the field.

            The motion is denied.

O’Reilly MIL No. 3

Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC served but never filed a motion to exclude a 1986 EPA Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics.  The motion does not appear in the court file, yet Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  Evidence about the Guidance may be relevant and admissible to show knowledge or notice, among other things, if Plaintiffs authenticate the document and establish a sufficient foundation at trial.  Also, the contents of the book may be admissible at trial via an expert if the expert establishes that it is general background information of the type relied upon by experts in the field.

The motion is denied.

O’Reilly MIL No. 4

            Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC served but never filed a motion to exclude the Don’t Blow It video.  The motion does not appear in the court file, yet Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  Evidence about the video may be admissible to show knowledge, among other things, if Plaintiffs authenticate the video and establish a sufficient foundation at trial.  Also, the video may be admissible at trial via an expert if the expert establishes that it is general background information of the type relied upon by experts in the field.

            The motion is denied.

            The moving party is to give notice.