Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV08470, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08470    Hearing Date: October 17, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

            Plaintiffs did not file this motion.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

            Plaintiffs did not file this motion.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3

            Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence about Defendants making ventilators and PPE in response to the pandemic as irrelevant, unduly prejudicial and a waste of time.  Defendants did not oppose this motion.  The parties should have been able to agree to a stipulation during their meet and confer process.

            Defendants’ Covid response is irrelevant to the issues in dispute in this case and would consume an undue amount of time.  The motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4

            Plaintiffs move to exclude the deposition testimony from Arnold Eric Anderson as hearsay and certain deposition exhibits as hearsay.  Objections to depositions and deposition exhibits are handled through the page/line designation process.

            Plaintiffs argue Ford never produced the deposition exhibits in discovery.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from that order.

            The motion to exclude the deposition exhibits because they were not produced in discovery is denied without prejudice to an objection at trial.  Otherwise, the motion is off calendar.  Plaintiffs should object to deposition testimony and deposition exhibits as part of the page/line designation process.

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

            Defendants seek to exclude the Don’t Blow It video and any evidence referring to the video as hearsay, unscientific, and prejudicial. 

Evidence about the video may be relevant and admissible to show knowledge or notice, among other things.  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 claim that the video is unscientific can be the subject of cross-examination and goes to the weight to be given the video.

Defendants argue the video is prejudicial because of the references to wives and children.  That section of the video is irrelevant because there is no claim in this case about injury to wives and children.  Similarly, smoking does not seem to be an issue in this case.  If Plaintiff establish that the video is admissible for a non-hearsay purpose, the portion of the video beginning with the discussion of the magazine article and ending with “I either quit smoking or I quit this business” is to be redacted.

            The motion is granted in part and denied.

Defendants’ MIL No. 2

            No motion was filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 3

            No motion was filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 4; Ford Motion Re EPA Gold Book And Publications

            Defendants move to exclude the EPA Gold Book.  Ford filed an unnumbered motion in limine to exclude evidence of the EPA Gold Book and other unidentified publications. 

The EPA Gold Book could be relevant to notice of the dangers of asbestos.  If Plaintiffs seek to use the document to show notice or knowledge, the documents may not be hearsay if it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.  Also, the contents of the document 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.  That the document was based on unscientific sources can be the subject of cross-examination and goes to the weight to be given the document and whether an expert can establish it is the type of information relied upon by experts.

As to other unidentified publications, the Ford motion is too vague.

            The motions are denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 5

            Defendants move to exclude Sarnac documents.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and granted.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from that order.

            Therefore, the motion is granted.

Defendants’ MIL No. 6

            Defendants move to exclude evidence that retail defendants had a duty to test or investigate products from third party suppliers.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied so long as the case includes an operative strict liability failure to warn cause of action.  This case contains a strict liability failure to warn cause of action.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order. 

            Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 7

            Defendants move to exclude evidence relating to compliance or non-compliance with 1972 OSHA labeling regulations because they apply only to employers, not manufacturers.  This motion is granted to the extent Plaintiffs seek to argue non-employer defendants were required to comply with the 1972 regulations.  It is denied if the 1972 regulations are offered for some other purpose such as notice or knowledge.

            The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendants’ MIL No. 8

            In this motion, Defendants seek to exclude evidence of a 1989 proposed EPA ban that never went into effect because it was invalidated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as not supported by sufficient evidence.  This evidence may go to notice or knowledge.  Plaintiffs can then cross-examine the witness about the fact that the proposed ban was never effective and was invalidated by the court for lack of evidence.

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

Defendants’ MIL No. 9

            Defendants move to exclude evidence of a proposed Illinois asbestos ban because it never went into effect.  This evidence may go to notice or knowledge.  Plaintiffs can then cross-examine the witness about the fact that the proposed ban was never effective.

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

Defendants’ MIL Nos. 10-14

            No motions were made.

Defendants’ MIL No. 15

            Defendants seek to limit medical expenses to the amount actually paid and to exclude all evidence of Plaintiff’s medical bills and the reasonable value of Plaintiff’s medical care.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from that order.

            Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Ford Motion Re CCAR Materials

            Ford filed an unnumbered motion in limine to exclude evidence about CCAR, which Ford describes as “an independent, nonprofit organization made up of over 200 affiliate organizations representing all segments of the automotive industry” and providing training materials among other information.

            Ford seeks to exclude material from the CCAR website as inadmissible hearsay.  The website materials may be admissible if they are used for notice or knowledge or if an expert establishes that they are the type of materials relied upon as accurate by experts in the field.  Also, to the extent Ford is arguing that knowledge of the CCAR materials cannot be imputed to Ford, this motion is deemed made and denied pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO.  Therefore, this request is denied subject to objection at trial.

            Ford seeks to exclude designated deposition testimony about CCAR.  Objections to specific designated deposition testimony are handled through the page/line designation process.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Ford Motion Re Replacement Part Liability

            Ford filed an unnumbered motion in limine to exclude arguments that it is liable for injury caused by products Ford did not place in the stream of commerce.  Ford does not identify specific evidence to be excluded.  If Plaintiffs plan to advance a theory that Ford is liable for products Ford did not manufacture or supply, that issue should be resolved through the jury instructions.

            The motion is denied as vague without prejudice to objections at trial.

Ford Motion Re Employee Deaths

            Ford filed an unnumbered motion in limine to exclude evidence of the deaths of Ford employees from mesothelioma irrelevant.  In particular, Ford objects to Plaintiffs’ designations of deposition testimony.  Objections to specific designated deposition testimony are handled through the page/line designation process.

            Ford also refers to unidentified documents that should be excluded.  This motion is too vague.

            Evidence that Ford knew its employees were dying from exposure to asbestos could be relevant to Ford’s knowledge and notice about the danger of asbestos.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

            The moving party is to give notice.