Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV18569, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18569    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff’s MIL Re Bankruptcy Trust

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence about bankruptcy trust claims.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO this motion is deemed made and granted.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            The motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL Re Permissible Exposure Limits

Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence about permissible exposure limits established by government regulations as irrelevant, confusing, and requiring an undue amount of time.  An expert may be able to show that government regulations about permissible exposure limits are the type of information experts in the field rely upon.  In that case, Plaintiffs can cross-examine the expert about whether the regulations are applicable to the exposures alleged in this case.  The issues raised by Plaintiffs, such as regulations applying to the workplace and argue the jury should give the exposure limits no weight.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL Re Proximate Cause

            Plaintiffs seek to preclude testimony about an improper test for causation.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied so long as the court intends to use CACI 435.  Decisions about jury instructions are for the trial court.

            The motion is denied without prejudice so long as the trial court intends to use CACI 435.

Plaintiffs’ MIL Re Background Exposure

            Plaintiffs move to exclude all reference to background asbestos as speculative and irrelevant.  An expert may be able to establish a foundation for the existence and relevance of background asbestos.  Also, pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, motions to exclude evidence as speculative are deemed made and denied.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from that order.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

Defendants move to exclude evidence of medical expenses not already paid.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from the order. 

            The motion is denied.

Defendants’ MIL Nos. 2-19

            These motions were not filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 20

            Defendant Metalclad seeks an order that strict liability does not apply against it because it is a contractor.  This should have been brought as a motion for summary adjudication of the strict liability cause of action. 

            The motion is denied as an improper summary adjudication motion disguised as a motion in limine.

Defendants’ MIL No. 21

            Defendant Metalclad moves exclude evidence of EPA and OSHA commentary on the causal connection between exposure to asbestos and the development of disease, as well as the French government’s ban on chrysotile asbestos.  Plaintiffs did not show that there is any evidence any defendant was aware of the French ban on chrysotile asbestos or the reasons why the French government banned it.  Allowing that evidence will consume an undue amount of trial time exploring the bases for the French ban.  The evidence would have little probative value because it did not apply to workplaces in the United States.

            The motion to exclude evidence about domestic governmental actions is too vague.  The information in existence before the last date of alleged exposure is potentially relevant to show Defendants’ knowledge and notice. 

            The motion is granted as to the French ban and otherwise denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 22

Metalclad moves to moves to exclude evidence of workers’ compensation claims.  If notice is contested, some evidence of the claims may be relevant.  However, the details of workers’ compensation actions 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 objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 23

Metalclad moves 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.