Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV14241, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14241    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendant’s MIL No. 1

            Defendant Longs Drug Stores California, LLC moves to exclude all references to talcum powders that Plaintiff did not use or did not purchase from Defendant because she testified that she bought only Almay, Revlon, Maybelline, Max Factor, Yardley, Clinique and L’Oreal talcum powder products from Defendant’s stores.  In effect, this is a motion to preclude evidence not disclosed in discovery.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, such a motion is deemed made and denied.  Defendant did not show good cause to depart from that order.  Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 2

            Defendant Longs Drug Stores California, LLC moves to exclude all references to news reports about talc litigation to establish notice as lacking foundation, hearsay, irrelevant and prejudicial. 

Defendant says there is no evidence anyone who worked for Defendant had any knowledge of the news reports.  However, the court cannot determine that in deciding a motion in limine. 

Defendant says the news reports are hearsay.  However, if they are offered for notice, they are not being offered for the truth of the matter and therefore are not hearsay. 

Defendant contends the news reports are irrelevant because there is no evidence anyone at Defendant read them and there is no evidence Plaintiff used asbestos-containing products purchased at Defendant’s stores.  This is a summary judgment argument, which the court cannot decide via motion in limine.

Defendant argues the news reports are prejudicial and misleading because journalists are not objective and do not tell the entire story.  Much evidence is one-sided and does not tell the entire story.  For example, usually a plaintiff testifies in a way that favors the plaintiff and a defendant testifies in a way that favors the defendant.  That this testimony is not objective and even-handed is not grounds to exclude it.  If any particular news report is admitted, Defendant can make the argument that the article in complete and not objective.

            Defendant identifies three Reuters articles to exclude.  Only one of them (the December 3, 2019 article) is on the exhibit list, among more than 3,200 other exhibits.  Obviously this is not a realistic exhibit list, and only a small fraction of these exhibits will actually be admitted into evidence at trial.  If Plaintiff actually seeks to use the December 3, 2019 article at trial, Defendant can object at that time.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

            The moving party is to give notice.