Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV03991, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03991    Hearing Date: October 16, 2023    Dept: 15

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

No motion was filed.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence and argument about workplace asbestos limits as irrelevant to exposure from home repairs.  This motion is too vague.  It does not identify any specific exhibit or testimony to be excluded.  It is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3

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 Robert Gonzalez had this procedure, the motion is denied without prejudice to an objection at trial.  If he 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. 4

Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of epidemiological studies of mines in Austri, France, and Norway and other mines not at issue in this case as irrelevant, prejudicial, and time-consuming.  This motion is too vague.  Further, an expert may be able to establish that the unspecified studies are the type of material experts in the field rely on.  The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5

            No motion was filed.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 6

Plaintiffs seek to exclude a 2019 letter written by Richard Attanoos as irrelevant and hearsay.  Attanoos wrote the letter in response to a letter criticizing a paper he had written.  Defendant states it does not oppose the motion.  Therefore the parties should be able to reach a stipulation.  The motion is off calendar.

Plaintiffs MIL No. 7

            Plaintiffs move to exclude opinions from non-testifying experts.  This motion is too vague.  It does not identify any particular opinion, expert, or document to exclude.  The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 8

Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence that other defendants were sued but are not at trial, the complaint, and the exhibits attached to the complaint as irrelevant and prejudicial, and because the complaint is not a judicial admission.

Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to modify the caption to refer only to defendants remaining in the case is deemed made and granted but not to affect any allocation of fault under Proposition 51.  To the extent the motion seeks to exclude any evidence of other defendants not at trial, the motion is denied as too vague.  For example, a deposition testimony of a witness of another defendant may be admissible, or evidence may be relevant for Proposition 51 purposes.

“ ‘The admission of fact in a pleading is a “judicial admission.” ’  [Citation.]  A judicial admission in a pleading is not merely evidence of a fact; it is a conclusive concession of the truth of the matter.  [Citation.]  ‘Well pleaded allegations in the complaint are binding on the plaintiff at trial.’  [Citation.]  ‘The trial court may not ignore a judicial admission in a pleading , but must conclusively deem it true as against the pleader.’  [Citation.]”  (Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 175, 187.)  Based on this caselaw, the complaint may contain judicial admissions of fact.  The court therefore cannot conclude at this time that the entire complaint and its exhibits are inadmissible.

            The motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 9

Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of complaints filed in bankruptcy cases and an order from the Garlock bankruptcy case.  Evidence and arguments about what happened in bankruptcy cases have little probative value, will be prejudicial and will consume an undue amount of trial time to explain the context and proceedings of those cases. 

            The motion is granted.

Defendants MIL Nos. 1-6

No motions were filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 7

Defendant Vanderbilt Minerals moves 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. 8

Defendant Vanderbilt Minerals moves to exclude all evidence that it communicated with OSHA about a proper definition of asbestos.  If Defendant contends it did not know about the presence or hazards of asbestos in talc at the times of the communications, Defendant’s communications may be relevant to its notice or knowledge about asbestos in talc.  Defendant’s argument that the evidence is speculative is addressed in the July 8, 2022 CMO, which seems such a motion made and denied.  Defendant 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. 9

Vanderbilt Minerals moves 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.  Defendant 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. 10

            Defendant Vanderbilt Minerals seeks to exclude a November 11, 1983 letter from McCrone Research Associated written by Gene Prentice and Gary Nichols to R.W. Owens about testing a talc sample from Defendant as contrary to scientific fact, lacking authentication, hearsay, and prejudicial.  Defendant says it cannot cross-examine the expert who wrote the letter.

            The court cannot determine before trial if a party will be able to authenticate a trial exhibit.  If the offering party fails to authenticate an exhibit, the objecting party should object at that time.  The court cannot determine before trial how the offering party will seek to use the letter.  If it is offered for a non-hearsay purpose (such as notice) or if it is admissible as a business record or under some other exception, this objection may have no merit.  That cannot be determined now.  If the letter is otherwise admissible, Vanderbilt can have its expert explain why the letter is contrary to scientific fact, and Vanderbilt can cross-examine any expert who relies on the letter.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 11

Vanderbilt Minerals seeks 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 Plaintiffs are 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 rely upon.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 12

Vanderbilt Minerals seeks 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. 

Defendant then specifies three (or maybe four; one is repeated twice) documents to exclude, arguing they are hearsay and Plaintiffs cannot establish that the documents are business records.  If Plaintiffs seek to use the documents at trial for the truth of the matter asserted (rather than for some non-hearsay purpose), and if they fail to show they are business records, Defendant can object at that time.

The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 13

Vanderbilt Minerals seeks to exclude statements that its products kill people and poison the world as argumentative and prejudicial.  This motion is too vague.  If at trial someone makes an improper statement, Defendant should object at that time.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.

Motion to Bifurcate

            Vanderbilt Minerals moves to bifurcate punitive damages.  The parties should have been able to agree to this.  The motion is granted.

The moving party is to give notice.