Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV17939, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17939    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

            Defendants move to exclude the Don’t Blow It video and any evidence referring to the video as hearsay, unscientific, and prejudicial.  Defendant states the video is not relevant to knowledge or notice because it was created after the exposure in this case.  Plaintiffs will first need to prove that the video was created during the exposure period in this case to establish relevance and admissibility to show knowledge or notice. 

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 Plaintiffs establish that the video is admissible, 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 Nos. 2-9

            No motions were filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 10

            Defendant The Pep Boys seeks to exclude any evidence or argument that they had a duty to investigate third-party products they sold.  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. 11

            Defendants move to exclude evidence about their compliance with 1972 OSHA labeling regulations because the regulations do not require any warning labels on their products.  To the extent this motion seeks a ruling on Plaintiff’s failure to warn claims, it is an improper motion for summary adjudication.  Otherwise, the motion is too vague. 

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 12            

No motion was filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 13

Defendants move to bifurcate punitive damages.  When a defendant moves to bifurcate, the court is required to preclude the admission of evidence of the defendant’s financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.  (Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (d).) 

The motion is granted.

The moving party is to give notice