Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV20250, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20250    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1

            Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence that he or anyone he lived with smoked.  The motion is granted as to argument that smoking evidence is relevant to failure to warn claims.  Smoking cigarettes (which are highly addictive) is not similar to working with or using asbestos-containing products (unlikely to be highly addictive), such that the evidence has little probative value regarding whether the decedent would have followed warnings about products containing asbestos.  The motion is otherwise denied as the evidence may be relevant Plaintiff’s life expectancy.

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

Defendants’ MIL Nos. 1-3

            No motions were filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 4

            Defendant NL Industries moves to exclude non-expert opinion about asbestos content.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied.  Defendant did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 5

Metalclad filed this motion.  Because this motion is specific to Metalclad and because Metalclad settled, it is off calendar.

Defendants’ MIL No. 6

Metalclad moves to seeks to exclude all evidence about regulatory bans on asbestos products including foreign bans on the importation on chrysotile asbestos as hearsay, irrelevant, and confusing and misleading.

            Plaintiffs did not show that there is any evidence any defendant was aware of a foreign ban on chrysotile asbestos or the reasons why the foreign governments banned it.  Allowing that evidence will consume an undue amount of trial time exploring the bases for and legislative history of the foreign bans.  The evidence would have little probative value because foreign bans did not apply to workplaces in the United States and would be confusing to the jury.

            The motion to exclude evidence about US federal and state regulations is too vague.  The information in existence before the last date of alleged exposure is potentially relevant to show knowledge and notice. 

            The motion is granted as to foreign bans and otherwise denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 7

Metalclad filed this motion.  Because this motion is specific to Metalclad and because Metalclad settled, it is off calendar.

Defendants’ MIL No. 8

            No motion was filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 9

            Defendant Ameron moves to exclude evidence of The Bondstrand Pipeline because it does not mention any jobsites where Plaintiff worked.  This motion is too vague.  For example, if Ameron’s knowledge about the hazards of asbestos is disputed, there may be a statement in the publication relevant to Ameron’s knowledge.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 10

Ameron moves to exclude reference to prior asbestos cases involving Ameron employees.  This motion is too vague.  First, it is common in asbestos litigation for parties to designate former testimony from prior cases.  Second, if Ameron disputes that it had knowledge about the hazards of asbestos, claims by its employees about injury from asbestos could be relevant to knowledge.  Therefore some reference to prior cases may be relevant.  However, detailed evidence about the prior claims and cases is likely to be more prejudicial than probative, confusing, and a waste of time.  It will be up to the trial court to decided how much is too much.

To the extent the motion seeks to exclude settlements, judgments and verdicts from other litigations, the motion is deemed made and granted pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO.  Plaintiff did not show good cause to depart from that order. 

            Therefore, the motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 11

            No motion was filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 12

            Defendant Metalclad seeks 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.