Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV18841, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18841    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1-16

            No motions were filed.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 17

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of Marni Regan’s alcoholism as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.  The motion is denied to the extent an expert relies on the evidence as relevant to Plaintiff’s life expectancy or showing causes of his disease.  Otherwise the motion is granted.

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

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 18

            No motion was filed.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 19

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence that Marni Regan filed for a restraining order against her husband before they were married as irrelevant and prejudicial.  Plaintiffs state they were married in 2018, the request for a restraining order was in 2017, and therefore the request is irrelevant to the state of their marriage.

            Defendant contends Marni Regan filed for the restraining order on May 5, 2017, and stated in the request that she and Michael Regan were married, he grabbed her by the head and neck and dragged her down the hallway, and this was not an isolated incident.  Defendant attaches the request showing Marni Regan stated under penalty of perjury they were married, he abused her at other times, and she had obtained a previous emergency protective order based on the abuse. 

            Based on the evidence in the request for a restraining order, whether the parties were married at the time of the restraining order is disputed.  The motion is denied.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 20

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of a past civil judgment against Marni Regan as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.  Plaintiffs state the case was in small claims court.  Defendants argue Marni Regan has been sued many times related to her work and the companies she runs, which Plaintiffs do not mention.

            The civil judgment in small claims court is irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative.  The motion is granted as to the small claims court judgment mentioned by Plaintiffs in their motion.  The alleged other lawsuits were not part of the motion and are not included in this order.

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

Defendant Whittaker Clark & Daniels moves to preclude memos from Heinz Eiermann and Robert Schaffner as hearsay and irrelevant.  Plaintiffs argue the memos go to notice and knowledge.

            If the memos are used for a non-hearsay purpose, evidence of the memos may be admissible.  An expert may rely on inadmissible hearsay, but may not tell the jury the contents of the hearsay unless the hearsay evidence is otherwise admissible.  If Plaintiffs first establish that someone in the appropriate position at Defendant saw the articles during the relevant time period, the articles could be admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of notice or knowledge.

The motion is granted as to the contents of the memos unless and until Plaintiffs establish that someone in the appropriate position at Defendant during the relevant time \knew of the articles.

Defendants’ MIL No. 2

            Withdrawn.

Defendants’ MIL No. 3

            Vanderbilt Minerals seeks to exclude evidence that talc can cause diseases other than mesothelioma as irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and confusing.  .  Plaintiffs allege Defendants’ products caused the decedent mesothelioma, not some other disease.  Therefore evidence about other diseases would be unduly time-consuming, confusing, and prejudicial.

            The motion is granted.

            Moving party is to give notice.