Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 20STCV17825, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV17825 Hearing Date: August 14, 2023 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDERS RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE; MOTION TO
BIFURCATE
Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1
Plaintiff
moves to exclude evidence of “but for” causation. This motion is deemed made and denied
pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO.
Plaintiff did not show good cause to depart from that order. The motion is denied without prejudice to
objections at trial.
Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2
Plaintiff
seeks to exclude any mention of genetics in connection with mesothelioma. This motion is too vague. Plaintiff does not identify any particular
document or expert testimony to be excluded.
Further, Plaintiff cites no evidence supporting the assertion that
genetics have nothing to do with mesothelioma.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 1
Defendants move to
exclude evidence of any claims related to mine and mill employees, as well as
workers’ compensation actions. If notice
of the dangers of asbestos or asbestos in the products at issue is contested,
some evidence of these claims may be relevant and for a non-hearsay
purpose. However, the details of the
claims would be unduly prejudicial, time-consuming, and confusing to the
jury. It is for the trial judge to
determine how much is too much. To the
extent a party seeks to introduce the amounts of any settlement, judgment,
verdict, or award in another litigation, the motion is deemed granted and made
pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO.
The
motion is granted in part and denied in part subject to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 1
Defendant Cerritos
Community College District moves to exclude evidence about its knowledge or
actions taken related to talc and asbestos after 2001 because Plaintiff took
art classes from 1997 to 2001. Plaintiff
did not file an opposition and did not show how post-2001 evidence is
relevant. Because the alleged exposure
ended in 2001 when the art classes ended, evidence of Defendant’s actions and
knowledge after that date are not relevant, would be confusing, and would
consume an undue amount of trial time.
The motion is granted.
Defendants’ MIL No. 1
Defendants move to
preclude references to damages amounts in voir dire and opening
statements. First, trial practices are
not the proper subject of motions in limine, and the trial court will have its
own rules about voir dire. Second, if
Plaintiff has evidence to prove a certain amount of damages, she can state in
opening that the evidence will prove that amount of damages. If Plaintiff fails to prove that amount, then
in closing Defendants can emphasize Plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of
proof.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 2
Defendants move to
exclude all evidence that they communicated with OSHA about a proper definition
of asbestos. If Defendants contend they
did not know about the presence or hazards of asbestos in talc at the times of
the communications, Defendants’ communications may be relevant to their notice
or knowledge about asbestos in talc.
Defendants’ argument that the evidence is speculative is addressed in
the July 8, 2022 CMO, which deems such a motion made and denied. Defendants did not show good cause to depart
from the CMO. The objection that
documents are hearsay depends on the use of the documents. If they are used for non-hearsay purposes,
such as notice, this objection will lack merit.
But that cannot be determined at this time.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 2
Defendant Cerritos
Community College District moves to exclude any reference to it being a
manufacturer, seller, supplier, distributor, or in the stream of commerce
because Plaintiff is not pursuing product liability claims against Defendant. This motion is too vague. Plaintiff can explain how she was exposed to
asbestos while attending school – that Defendant had obtained
asbestos-containing products that she used at the school. Those products did not somehow just appear
one day at the art class. By obtaining
those products, Defendant was in the stream of commerce.
The motion is denied
without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 2
Defendants move to
prevent experts from telling the jury the contents or titles of hearsay
documents. The motion does not specify
any titles to be excluded and therefore is too vague. Also, some of the documents upon which the
experts rely may be otherwise admissible.
And if an expert establishes the hearsay is general background information
of the type relied upon by experts in the field, the hearsay may be
admissible. (People v. Veamatahau
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 16, 22.)
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 3
Defendants move to
exclude all evidence of any documents from Johns-Manville Corporation about
Vanderbilt Minerals. This motion is too
vague and broad in referring to all such documents.
Defendants then specify
three documents to exclude, arguing they are hearsay and Plaintiff cannot
establish that the documents are business records. If Plaintiff seeks to use the documents at
trial for the truth of the matter asserted (rather than for some non-hearsay
purpose), and if she fails to show they are business records, Defendants can
object at that time.
The motion is denied
without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 3
Defendant Cerritos
Community College District moves to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial
actions it took as irrelevant and prejudicial.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition and did not show how this evidence
is relevant and admissible. Because this
evidence is more prejudicial than probative and would consume an undue amount
of trial time, the motion is granted.
Defendants’ MIL No. 4
Defendants move to
exclude the Hull Paper as “nothing more than junk science” because its authors
serve as expert witness for plaintiffs, it was not subject to peer review, and
it did not follow the proper methodology.
If an expert establishes that the Hull Paper is the type of material
that experts in the field rely upon, evidence about the Hull Paper may be
admissible. Defendants can then
cross-examine the expert about the perceived deficiencies in the study and
argue to the jury that it should be given little or no weight.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 4
Defendants
move to exclude evidence suffered by Plaintiff’s family members because they
are not plaintiffs. This motion is too
vague. If Plaintiff’s counsel asks an
improper question about how her family feels or the burden on them, Defendants
should object at that time. The motion
is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 6
Defendants seek to
preclude March 24, 1982 and March 31, 1982 OSHRC documents about asbestos in
R.T. Vanderbilt Company’s talc as lacking foundation, hearsay, and improper
expert testimony. If Plaintiff is able
to authenticate the documents at trial, they may be admissible for a
non-hearsay purpose, such as notice or knowledge about asbestos in talc. Or an expert may be able to establish that it
is the type of material that experts in the field reliable upon.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 7
Defendants move to
exclude statements that their products kill people and poison the world as
argumentative and prejudicial. This
motion is too vague. If at trial someone
makes an improper statement, Defendants should object at that time.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.
Motion to Bifurcate
Vanderbilt
Minerals, LLC filed a motion to bifurcate punitive damages. Plaintiff then filed a notice of settlement
with Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC. Therefore,
the motion to bifurcate is off calendar.
The moving party is to
give notice.