Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 21STCV16240, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16240    Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

            Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of OSHA regulations and industry guidelines regarding asbestos.  This motion is too vague.

The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 11

            The W.W. Henry Company moves to exclude evidence of its non-compliance with 1972 OSHA regulations about warning labels for asbestos because Plaintiffs were not employees of Defendant and the 1972 regulations did not impose any obligation on Defendant to label products it sold to Plaintiffs. 

            The motion is granted to the extent Plaintiffs seek to argue the W.W. Henry Company was required to comply with the 1972 regulations.  It is denied if the 1972 regulations are offered for some other purpose.

            The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendants’ MIL No. 37

            Pfizer moves to exclude evidence about outdated regulations, policies, actions, and decisions by OSHA or any government agency.  This motion is too vague and overbroad.

            Pfizer mentions OSHA regulations changing between 1972 and 1992 and wants to exclude all pre-1992 OSHA regulations.  This motion is too vague and overbroad.  For example, earlier OSHA regulations could be relevant to notice and knowledge.

            Pfizer moves to exclude all references to the IWGACP formed in 2018 and its recommendations and papers as irrelevant, misleading, and hearsay.  If an expert establishes that this is the type of background information relied upon by experts, the evidence may be relevant and admissible even if hearsay.  Defendant can then cross-examine the expert on the fact that the work is only preliminary.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

            The moving party is to give notice.