Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 21STCV23802, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV23802 Hearing Date: August 29, 2022 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1
No
motion was filed.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2
Plaintiffs
move to exclude evidence that the FDA has determined cosmetic talc does not
contain asbestos and is safe on the grounds that no such evidence exists. If there is no such evidence, then there is
nothing to exclude. If a party in
opening refers to evidence that does not exist, the other side can point out to
the jury that the party promised to show the jury evidence on an issue and then
failed to fulfill that promise at trial.
Otherwise this is too vague.
More
specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned about a FDA survey in 2009-2010, which
Plaintiffs contend is irrelevant because the survey addressed talc from
different mines than the talc at issue here.
This survey may be the type of material experts rely on. If an expert is relying on this survey,
Plaintiffs can cross-examine the expert about the source of the talc and argue
to the jury that it should not give the document any weight. If a party seeks to admit the actual survey,
Plaintiffs can object at that time.
Plaintiffs
argue that statements by the FDA are hearsay and lack foundation. This is too vague. depending on how the statements are used,
they may not be hearsay or could fall within exceptions to the hearsay
rule. Plaintiffs should object at trial
if another party tries to admit evidence that lacks foundation or is hearsay
without an exception.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3
Plaintiffs
move to exclude evidence about regulatory agencies’ workplace asbestos exposure
limits as irrelevant and misleading.
This is the type of material an expert may rely on, and it may be
admissible if an expert proves it is the type of information relied upon by
experts in the field. If an expert
relies on workplace exposure limits, the other parties can cross-examine the
expert about the difference between workplace exposure and cosmetic use and
argue the jury should give the exposure limits no weight.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4
No
motion was filed.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5
No
motion was filed.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 6
Plaintiffs
seek to exclude evidence of a procedure called talc pleurodesis as not relevant
to causation and irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing to the jury. If Plaintiff had this procedure, the motion
is denied. If Plaintiff did not have
this procedure, the motion is granted as the evidence would require an undue
amount of trial time and confusing medical evidence explaining the purposes of
the procedure and when and how it is used.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 7
No
motion was filed.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 8
No motion
was filed.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 9
No
motion was filed.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 10
No
motion was filed.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 11
Plaintiffs
move to preclude Chanel from arguing it relied on talc suppliers for its
asbestos analysis on the ground this argument is unsupported by the evidence
and is based on speculation. This is too
vague. If a witness is asked a question
calling for speculation or without foundation, Plaintiffs should object at that
time.
Plaintiffs
argue various documents are hearsay.
This is too vague. Documents can
be used for various non-hearsay purposes or there could be an exception. If at trial a party seeks to admit documents
containing hearsay for which there is no exception, the other party should
object at that time.
Plaintiffs
argue the reliance evidence is more prejudicial than probative. This is too vague. There is no specific evidence identified.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to an objection at trial.
Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 12
The
motion seeks to exclude evidence about the founding of Chanel and other Chanel
products as irrelevant and prejudicial.
This motion is too vague. Some
background information about Chanel is permissible, just as Plaintiffs are
likely to spend some time introducing themselves. If Chanel is spending too much time on its
history, Plaintiffs can object at trial.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 1
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 2
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 3
Defendants
seek to exclude references to Coco Chanel’s personal affiliations during World
War II and her personal life. This is
too vague. Also, if Chanel plans to tell
the story about Coco Chanel’s personal life beyond her founding of the company,
Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to ask questions about her personal
life. If Chanel does not introduce
evidence about Coco Chanel’s personal life, then this line of questioning is
irrelevant.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 4
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 5
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 6
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 7
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 8
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 9
Defendants
seek to exclude evidence about the IWGACP formed in 2018 and its
recommendations and papers in 2020 and 2021 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 may be 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.
Defendants’ MIL No. 10
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 11
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 12
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 13
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 14
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 15
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 16
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 17
Defendants
move to exclude all evidence of experiments and simulations about the use of
talcum powder products as not similar enough to the facts of this case and not
based on generally accepted scientific methods. This motion is too vague, does not identify
any particular experiment or simulation, and does not specify the opinions to
be excluded.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 18
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 19
No
motion was filed.
Defendants’ MIL No. 20
Defendants
seek to exclude non-expert witness from testifying about the asbestos content
in any product. 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,
this motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at
trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 21
This
motion seeks to preclude evidence about a post-sale duty to warn. 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,
this motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at
trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 22
Defendants
move to exclude references to Defendants with derogatory terms as “criminals,”
“liars,” “cheats” and “frauds.” This
motion is too vague. For example, if a
defense witness testifies contrary to the witness’s prior testimony, that may
show the defense witness is not truthful. Plaintiffs have the right to try to impeach
the witness ans show the witness has changed his or her testimony. In addition, Plaintiffs alleged fraud causes
of action and seek punitive damages, which require proving Defendants acted
with fraud, malice or oppression.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 23
Defendants
move to exclude references to products made by Defendant Caswell-Massey’s
predecessor before 2007 because Caswell-Massey is not liable for any products
made before 2007. Whether Caswell-Massey
assumed the pre-2007 liabilities of its predecessor is not something that can
be decided on a motion in limine. Caswell-Massey
can argue and present evidence at trial that it did not assume any such
liabilities.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 24
This
motion seeks to exclude all evidence about talc mines and products if
Plaintiffs cannot prove the talc was used in any products Plaintiffs used. This motion is too vague. It does not identify any specific evidence or
opinion to be excluded. Also, evidence
about talc in other products and from other mines could be the type of evidence
relied on by experts. The experts can be
cross-examined about that reliance, and that they relied on such information
goes to the weight to be given their opinions.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 25
Defendants
move to exclude evidence of reports from the CTFA in 1973 as irrelevant because
Bristol-Myers Squibb did not exist then and as unduly prejudicial and
confusing. This is the type of evidence
an expert might rely upon, and it could be relevant to notice and knowledge
more broadly.
The
motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
Defendants’ MIL No. 26
This
motion seeks to exclude argument that the knowledge of the trade organization
CTFA/PCPC should be imputed to Defendants.
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,
this motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at
trial.
The moving party is to give notice.