Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV23582, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23582    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs MILs

            Plaintiffs did not file any motions in limine.

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. 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 Defendant’s 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. 2

Withdrawn.

Defendants’ MIL No. 3

            Defendants move to exclude the contents of publications through expert testimony or in questions.  This motion is too vague.  If an expert establishes that experts in the field rely upon a particular document as accurate, that document may be admissible.  Also, a document may be admissible for a non-hearsay purpose.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 4

            Defendants seek to exclude evidence about dust levels based on witnesses’ visual observations.  A witness has personal knowledge of what the witness observed firsthand.  Evidence that Plaintiffs observed dust may be relevant to the existence of asbestos fibers in the air and how Plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos. 

            Defendants also seek exclusion of expert opinions about dust in the air.  But Defendants do not identify the expert who based his or her conclusions on the quantity of dust in the air or on another witness’s observations of dust in the air.  At this point, this motion is vague. 

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objection at trial.

Defendants’ MIL No. 5

Defendant Kaiser Gypsum moves to exclude evidence of a position statement from the Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology published on July 24, 2012 as hearsay, irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative.

            This statement is hearsay and not subject to an exception.  The document was prepared by a body established “to coordinate and unify joint policy actions globally,” and the document itself states it is a call for political action against asbestos rather than an unbiased scientific document.  Explaining the origins and development of the document would consume an undue amount of time and confuse the jury.  Plaintiffs did not show this document is evidence of any defendant’s knowledge or notice at the time of the exposure. 

            Therefore, the motion is granted.

Defendants’ MIL No. 6

Defendants move to exclude reference to Plaintiffs and others as victims, contending the use of the term is more prejudicial than probative.  Plaintiffs do not identify any need to use the terms “victim” or “victims.”  The use of the term “victim” suggestions someone at fault for harming the victim.  Thus, while the prejudice might not be great, the relevance is negligible. 

The motion is granted.

Defendants’ MIL No. 7

            Withdrawn.

Defendants’ MIL No. 8

            Withdrawn.

Defendants’ MIL No. 9

            No motion was filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 10

            No motion was filed.

Defendants’ MIL No. 11

            Defendant PK&P Investment seeks to exclude evidence about consumer expectations and instructions on consumer expectations.  The trial court decides which jury instructions to give, and a motion in limine is not the mechanism for requesting or objecting to particular instructions. 

            The motion is denied without prejudice to objecting to consumer expectation instructions.

Defendants’ MIL No. 12

            Defendant PK&P Investment moves to exclude Plaintiffs’ claim for lost wages as speculative.  This is not a proper motion in limine to exclude evidence.  Rather by seeking to exclude a claim for damages, Defendant makes an improper motion for summary adjudication.  If Plaintiffs do not prove their claim for lost wages at trial, Defendant can argue to the jury that Plaintiffs presented no evidence of lost wages.  Also, pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, motions to exclude evidence as speculative are deemed made and denied.  Defendant did not show good cause to depart from that order.

            The motion is denied.

            The moving party is to give notice.