Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case Number: 23STCV19133, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV19133, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19133 Hearing Date: March 25, 2024 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

Plaintiffs move to exclude speculative arguments about Plaintiff’s exposure. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is 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.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

Plaintiffs move to exclude speculation that genetics caused Plaintiff’s illness. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is 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.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3

Plaintiffs move to exclude expert testimony about the benefits of the AMMCO brake grinder design. This motion is too vague. It does not identify the specific testimony to be excluded. It is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4

Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence about a brake show grinder design as irrelevant. Plaintiffs do not identify any specific exhibit or expert testimony to be excluded. Therefore the motion is too vague. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5

Plaintiffs move to exclude any reference to any defendant being a “mom and pop” business. This motion is too vague. Plaintiffs did not prove that every defendant is a large corporation. Indeed, Plaintiffs only mentioned one defendant. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 6

Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence that asbestos has been used for many beneficial purposes, is a state rock, and was used during the war. This motion is too vague. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 7

Plaintiffs move to preclude Hennessy from making arguments that it is not a successor in interest to Ammco. This is not a proper motion in limine, and Plaintiffs filed no evidence supporting their arguments. If successor liability is an issue, the parties need to meet and confer on how and when this equitable issue will be resolved. The motion is denied.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 8

Plaintiffs seek to exclude any arguments that Hennessy’s brake grinder did not contain asbestos because a June 18, 2015 decision in another case concluded that the brake grinders did not contain asbestos. In other words, Plaintiffs contend that the June 18, 2015 decision in another case decided the issue for future cases and serves as issue preclusion in this case. This argument fails because Plaintiffs did not satisfy the elements for issue preclusion. For example, Plaintiff did not show that the same brake grinder at issue in the prior case is at issue in this case. Rather Plaintiff seems to contend that all Hennessy brake show grinders contained asbestos, but provides no evidence of that. Further, Plaintiffs’ quotation from the June 18, 2015 states that on the record in that prior case, someone using the particular AMMCO machine at issue in the prior case would encounter asbestos, not because the machine itself contained asbestos, but because almost all drum brake linings contained asbestos. (Motion at pp. 3-4.) Thus, the June 18, 2015 decision is limited to the record of that case, and Plaintiffs did not show that decision supports Plaintiffs’ position that Hennessy brake grinders themselves contained asbestos.

The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 9

Defendant Pneumo Abex moves to exclude references to the Pneumo Abex Asbestos Claims Settlement Trust as not relevant and prejudicial because that entity is not a party in this case. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to exclude evidence of the bankruptcy of an alleged tortfeasor not present at trial is deemed made and granted. Plaintiff did not show good cause to depart from this order. Therefore the motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 10

Plaintiffs move to exclude arguments that there is background asbestos in the air. 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 or unsubstantiated 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.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 11

Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of complaints about Plaintiff to the Contractors State License Board concerning construction work he did involving a driveway and a home remodel. Defendants argue that the evidence shows Plaintiff “has a pattern and practice of questionable business dealings.” That is improper character evidence. Defendants argue the complaints are related to product identification. That makes no sense. There is no evidence that the work on the driveway or home remodel involved asbestos products.

Litigating the two complaints to the Contractors State License Board will be confusing and consume an undue amount of time in a trial that is already too long, and the complaints have little, if any, probative value. The motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 12

Plaintiffs moves o exclude bad acts by Plaintiffs’ accountant unrelated to Plaintiffs, specifically that the accountant cheated a lot of people. Plaintiffs argue this evidence is irrelevant because the conduct did not involve Plaintiffs. Defendants argue the accountant is a liar and a cheat, and that Plaintiffs did business with him even though they knew he was a liar and cheat. Defendants seem to argue that because Plaintiffs continued to do business with the accountant, that Plaintiffs must also be untrustworthy. That is improper character evidence. Defendants cite no law that one person’s dishonesty can be used as character evidence against another person.

Defendants also argue that the accountant’s bad acts regarding third parties mean that his accounting for Plaintiffs cannot be trusted. Again, there is no legal basis to say that because a person cheated one person, that is evidence that he cheated a different person. This is improper character evidence.

Delving into the accountant’s bad acts will consume an undue amount of time and be confusing to the jury, and had little probative value. The motion is granted.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 13

Plaintiffs move to exclude reference to unspecified lawsuits Plaintiffs have been involved in. This motion is too vague, and the motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs move to exclude references to a breach of contract lawsuit Plaintiffs filed in Los Angeles. Defendants argue evidence of the lawsuit is relevant to impeachment because the lawsuit shows Plaintiffs lied during the course of doing business. Defendant does not present any evidence of that. In any event, re-litigating some prior breach of contract case to show that Plaintiffs lied in that prior case is confusing and will take too much time, and is improper character evidence.

Defendants also argue the breach of contract case shows Plaintiff’s knowledge about the dangers of asbestos. Defendants did not show that the breach of contract case had anything to do with asbestos. The motion regarding the breach of contract lawsuit is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 1

Defendant Mission Stucco moves to exclude evidence of foreign bans on the importation of chrysotile asbestos. Plaintiffs did not show evidence that 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 is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 1

Defendants seek to preclude a 1986 EPA document entitled “Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics” as irrelevant, hearsay, unscientific, and unduly prejudicial. If Defendants contend they did not know about the hazards of asbestos by 1986, the document could be relevant to Defendants’ notice of the dangers of asbestos, a non-hearsay use. Also, the contents of the document may be admissible at trial via an expert if the expert establishes it is general background information of the type relied upon by experts in the field. That the document was based on unscientific sources can be the subject of cross-examination and goes to the weight to be given the document and whether an expert can establish it is the type of information relied upon by experts. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 2

Defendants move to exclude evidence relating to the Friction Materials Standard Institute as unauthenticated, irrelevant, and hearsay. The motion does not identify the specific documents or even state whether the documents appear on the parties’ joint witness list. This motion is too vague. The court cannot predict whether Plaintiffs will be able to authenticate and establish the admissibility of unidentified documents at trial. Defendants should object if and when Plaintiff seeks to use specific FMSI documents at trial. For example, an expert might rely on a FMSI document, and such a document might be admissible if the expert establishes that it is the type of document relied upon as accurate by experts in the field. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 2

Defendant Mission Stucco moves to exclude 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. 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. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 3

Defendants move to exclude evidence of workers’ compensation actions. If notice of the dangers of asbestos or asbestos in the products at issue is contested, some evidence of these claims may be relevant and for a non-hearsay purpose. However, the details of the claims 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 objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 4

Defendants seek to exclude testimony and videos about William Longo and Richard Hatfield’s work simulations because the simulations are not similar to Plaintiff’s exposure. Defendants argue the simulations took place in small sealed chambers, used improper testing methods such as TEM analysis not recognized by OSHA, and will be confusing to the jury because the conditions are so different. Whether TEM is an appropriate method “goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the opinions.” (Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 796, 811-812.) At trial, Defendants can cross-examine the experts about the similarities and differences of Plaintiff’s exposure to a small, sealed chamber and argue the jury should give the videos no weight because of the different conditions. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 5

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 6

Defendant Morse Tec moves to exclude reference to a 1989 proposed EPA ban that never went into effect because it was invalidated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as not supported by sufficient evidence. This evidence may go to notice or knowledge. Defendant can cross-examine the witness about the fact that the proposed ban was never effective and was invalidated by the court for lack of evidence. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 6

See No. 6 above.

Defendant’s MIL No. 7

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 8

Defendant Pneumo Abex LLC seeks to exclude evidence from the Saranac experiments. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and granted. Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from that order. The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 9

Defendant Westside Building Material Corporation moves to exclude evidence about any of its locations other than Chatsworth because Plaintiff only purchased products from the Chatsworth location. This motion is too vague. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 10

Defendant Westside Building Material moves to exclude any evidence about Quik-Set, Hamilton, Supro, Kaiser Gypsum, Synko, Riverside, La Habra, and Mission because there is no evidence Defendant supplied those products. This motion is too vague and broad. There may be evidence that other defendants supplied products from those companies. In any event, a motion to exclude unsubstantiated evidence is deemed made and denied pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO. Defendant did not show good cause to depart from that order. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 11

Defendant Amcord, Inc. moves to exclude a March 12, 1974 memorandum about blue asbestos in gun plastic as irrelevant, prejudicial, and misleading. Defendant contends the reference to “blue asbestos” in the memo is to a brand name, not to a specific type of asbestos. If the memo is otherwise admissible (e.g., it is authenticated), then Defendant can have a witness explain that “blue asbestos” is a brand name and can cross-examine any witness who contends that “blue asbestos” refers to something other than a brand name. The jury will be able to understand the difference between a brand name and a specific type of asbestos, and the jury can decide who is correct. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 12

Amcord moves to exclude evidence of working conditions at Amcord’s facility as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial because Plaintiff was never employed at the facility. This motion is too vague. If “working conditions” refers to something like wage and hour violations, that would be irrelevant. However, if it refers to something like workers being exposed to asbestos, the evidence could be relevant. For example, the evidence of asbestos exposure at the facilities could be relevant to knowledge or notice. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 13

Amcord moves to exclude any evidence of lobbying activities. The motion is too vague and does not identify any specific evidence to be excluded. Defendant refers generally to deposition transcripts from prior cases. Objections to deposition transcripts from prior cases and designations of former testimony are to be handled via the process set out in the July 8, 2022 CMO. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 14

Defendant Amcord, Inc. moves to exclude photographs from a deposition as unauthenticated, irrelevant, and hearsay. If Plaintiffs attempt to use the photographs at trial without first authenticating them, Defendants should object at that time. Photographs are not statements made by a person; they are made by a camera. One of the photos shows bags with a label that seems to say “Riverside Gun Plastic.” Whether that photograph contains hearsay depends on how Plaintiffs plan to use the photograph at trial. For example, if Plaintiffs use the photograph to show that the particular bags depicted in the photo actually contained Riverside Gun Plastic, the hearsay objection may be meritorious. But there could be non-hearsay uses of that photograph. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 15

Defendant Black & Decker moves to exclude any reference to its product as containing asbestos because there is no evidence it contained asbestos. This is an improper motion for summary judgment. The motion is denied.

Defendant’s MIL No. 16

Defendant Black & Decker moves to exclude all reference to other lawsuits involving it and its related entities. This motion is too vague. For example, it is common in asbestos cases to use deposition testimony from prior cases. To the extent a party seeks to introduce the amounts of any settlement, judgment, verdict, or award in another litigation, the motion is deemed made and granted pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO.

The motion is granted in part and denied in part subject to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 17

Defendant Union Carbide moves to exclude evidence of its corporate structure and relationship with Dow Chemical. This motion is too vague. If at trial Plaintiff asks questions about these topics that are irrelevant, Defendant can object at that time. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 18

Union Carbide moves to exclude any reference to incidents where people died or were injured as a result of Union Carbide’s chemicals other than asbestos. Incidents not involving asbestos are irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, and would be unduly time consuming. The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 19

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 20

Defendant Autozone West moves to exclude the Don’t Blow It video and any evidence referring to the video as hearsay, unscientific, and prejudicial. 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. Defendant contends the EPA updated its guidance in 2007 so the video is outdated. That too can be the subject of cross-examination.

Defendant argues the video’s references to an article and wives and children lack foundation. That section of the video is irrelevant because there is no claim in this case about injury to wives and children. If Plaintiff establishes that the video is admissible, the portion of the video about the magazine article and wives and children are to be redacted.

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

Defendant’s MIL No. 21

Defendant Chattem, Inc. moves to exclude evidence and argument that it is liable for injury before it purchased Gold Bond in 1996 because the April 10, 1996 Asset Purchase Agreement states Chattem has liability only for claims “which arise from use of the Products and which occur on or after the Closing Date, regardless of when such Liability Claim is brought.” (Asset Purchase Agreement, § 9.2.) Defendant did not file a copy of that agreement. Because Defendant failed to file the agreement, the court cannot determine what liabilities were assumed or not assumed under the agreement. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 22

Defendant Chattem, Inc. seeks to prevent Plaintiffs’ experts from telling the jury the titles of articles and books because the titles are hearsay, biased, and inflammatory. The motion does not identify any particular title. It is too vague. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 23

Defendant Chattem, Inc. moves to exclude certain statements during voir dire. This is an improper motion in limine. Motions in limine are to exclude evidence, and statements during voir dire are not evidence. Issues about the conduct of the trial, including the conduct of voir dire, are more properly raised with the trial judge. The motion is denied without prejudice to raising questions about the conduct of trial with the trial judge.

Defendant’s MIL No. 23

Defendant Sherwin-Williams moves to exclude any evidence that it used raw asbestos because this case is about talc, not raw asbestos. This motion is too vague. For example, if Defendant claims it had no knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, its use of raw asbestos may be relevant. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant also moves to exclude all evidence of asbestos-related workers compensation claims. See No. 3 above.

Defendant’s MIL No. 24

Sherwin-Williams moves to exclude references to products not at issue. The motion is too vague as to the products Defendant contends are not at issue and the specific evidence to be excluded. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 25

Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company seeks to exclude arguments that any of its paint contained asbestos because Plaintiffs have no evidence of that. This is an improper motion for summary judgment. The motion is denied.

Defendant’s MIL No. 26

Sherwin-Williams moves to exclude all of its documents mentioning “fibrous,” “fibers,” “Asbestiform,” and “asbestos.” The motion is vague and overbroad. It does not identify the specific documents to be excluded. It does not state that any of the unidentified documents actually appear on the parties’ joint witness list. Also, some documents referring to asbestos could be very relevant. For example, if Sherwin-Williams has an internal memo stating that it has determined that products it sells contain dangerous levels of asbestos, that document would obviously be relevant to Plaintiffs’ case. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 27

Kaiser Gypsum moves to exclude testimony from Crosby and Crum. General and hearsay objections to prior deposition are handled through the general objection process set forth in the July 8, 2022 CMO. The motion is denied without prejudice to timely general objections pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO.

Defendant’s MIL No. 28

Defendant Kaiser Gypsum moves to exclude evidence of all regulatory bans regarding asbestos-containing products, including foreign bans on the importation of chrysotile asbestos. Plaintiffs did not show evidence that 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.

Defendant’s MIL No. 29

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 30

J-M Manufacturing moves to exclude evidence and argument that it has liability for any product made, sold, or distributed by John-Manville Corporation because it is not responsible for John-Manville’s liabilities. Plaintiffs state they will not seek to hold J-M Manufacturing liable for any products sold before 1983. Therefore, the parties should be able to agree to a stipulation. The motion is off calendar for the parties to meet and confer on a stipulation (which they should have done before this motion was filed.)

Defendant’s MIL Nos. 31-33

No motions were filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 34

J-M Manufacturing moves to exclude reference to Johns-Manville Corporation’s and Certainteed Corporation’s bankruptcies. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO this motion is deemed made and granted. Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from that order. The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 35

See No. 3 above.

Defendant’s MIL No. 36

Defendant J-M Manufacturing moves to exclude any reference about Defendant, J-M A/C Pipe Corporation and/or Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. being successor corporations or alter egos or having successor liability because Plaintiffs cannot prove such successor liability. If successor liability is an issue and needs to be tried, it is a matter for the trial court, not the jury. The parties are to raise the matter of how successor liability is to be tried with the trial judge.

The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 37

See No. 4 above.

Defendant’s MIL No. 37

See No. 3 above.

Defendant’s MIL No. 38

Defendant Hennessy Industries, LLC move to exclude evidence that its predecessor sold brake grinding machines that had warning labels on them outside the United States in the 1990s. Defendant states these sales occurred after Plaintiff’s exposure. However, post-exposure warnings can be admissible to prove a product defect in a strict liability action. The evidence could be relevant to prove a product defect, even if the warnings existed after the last exposure date. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 38

The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 39

Hennessy moves to exclude a 1978 insurance industry survey because an insurance company did the survey and it is prejudicial and cumulative. If the survey states that Hennessy is an insured, such references are to be redacted. The survey may be relevant to notice and knowledge. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial and subject to the redaction of references to Hennesy being insured.

Defendant’s MIL No. 40

Hennessy moves to exclude a 1986 study about asbestos generated from use of Defendant’s products because an insurance company did the study and evidence of defendant’s liability insurance is not admissible, and the report was after the exposure date. If the study states that Hennessy is an insured, such references are to be redacted. The study may be relevant to notice and knowledge and failure to recall a defective product, even if it was issued after the last date of exposure. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial and subject to the redaction of references to Hennesy being insured.

Defendant’s MIL No. 41

Defendant Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust moves to preclude Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims, and causes of action for conspiracy and intentional torts. This is an improper motion for summary adjudication. The motion is denied.

Defendant’s MIL No. 42

Defendant Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust seeks to preclude the mention of its name because it exists solely to litigate asbestos cases concerning Fel-Pro products, and the name is prejudicial. The name suggests the existence of other lawsuits and that Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust has been sued many times. Plaintiffs did not show that the use of the name is necessary or probative. Given the prejudice involved in the name, using the name “Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust” during trial will be more prejudicial than probative. The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 43

Honeywell moves to exclude a letter and a memo from E.A. Martin because the documents cannot be authenticated, are hearsay, are not relevant, and are more prejudicial than probative. Defendant states the documents are unsigned and there is no evidence about who wrote or received them. The court cannot determine at this point that no witness will be able to authenticate the documents. If Plaintiffs seek to introduce unauthenticated documents at trial, Defendant should object then.

The documents could be relevant to notice or knowledge of the dangers of asbestos. If Plaintiffs seek to use the documents to show notice, the documents may not be hearsay if they are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted (assuming they can be authenticated).

The last paragraph of the letter is more prejudicial than probative. If Plaintiffs authenticate the letter and establish its relevance and non-hearsay use at trial, the last paragraph of the letter is to be redacted before the letter is admitted. Plaintiffs did not establish the author of the letter was a managing agent or authorized to speak for the company.

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

Defendant’s MIL No. 44

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 45

Defendant Chattem, Inc. moves to exclude evidence that in 2020 it started using cornstarch instead of talc in Gold Bond as irrelevant and prejudicial. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition and did not show that the switch is relevant. The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 46

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 47

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 48

Defendant W.W. Henry Company 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. 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. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL No. 49

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 50

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 51

Defendants move to exclude the use of the term “victim” contending the use of the term is more prejudicial than probative. Plaintiffs do not identify any need to use the term “victim.” The use of “victim” suggests someone at fault for harming the victim. Thus, while the prejudice might not be great, the relevance is negligible. The motion is granted.

Defendant’s MIL Nos. 52-54

No motions were filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 55

See No. 4 above.

Defendant’s MIL No. 56

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 57

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 58

W.W. Henry Company moves to exclude an article by Laura S. Welch. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and granted as to Welch’s amicus brief but not her article. Defendant did not show good cause to depart from that order. Therefore, the motion is denied as to the article without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 59

Defendant Block Drug Company moves to exclude testimony that it is responsible for liability during the time it did not own Gold Bond. This is an argument that Defendant does not have successor liability for the time period before it owned the product. The court cannot decide successor liability on a motion in limine. Defendant also contends that it has no liability for the time period after it sold the product. This too is an issue of successor liability. The parties need to meet and confer on how and when this equitable issue will be resolved. The motion is denied.

Defendant’s MIL No. 60

No motion was filed.

Defendant’s MIL No. 61

Defendant Baltimore Aircoil Company moves to exclude speculative testimony about asbestos content in BAC cooling towers. This motion is deemed made and denied pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO. Defendant did not show good cause to depart from that order. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 62

Defendant Baltimore Aircoil Company moves to exclude evidence not produced during discovery. This motion is too vague. Further it is deemed made and denied pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO. Defendant did not show good cause to depart from that order. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 62

Defendants move to exclude evidence of Japanese workers compensation claims. See No. 3 above.

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

Defendants move to exclude references to Kubota Shock. Defendants do not explain what this means. The motion is too vague. It is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendants move to exclude all documents about asbestos fiber concentrations and the risks of mesothelioma in an area around an asbestos cement plant in Japan. This motion is too vague. It does not identify the specific documents to be excluded. Further, the evidence could be relevant to notice. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 63

Defendants move to exclude speculative testimony about Plaintiff’s economic losses. This motion is deemed made and denied pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO. Defendants did not show good cause to depart from that order. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 64

Defendant Baltimore Aircoil Company moves to exclude reference to BAC-Pritchard or any claim that Defendant is the successor in interest to BAC-Pritchard. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is the successor in interest to BAC-Pritchard and has the burden of proving that. The court cannot determine on a motion in limine that Plaintiffs will not be able to prove their successor in interest claim. That is an improper motion for summary judgment. The motion is denied. The parties are to meet and confer about how and when the success in interest claim is to be resolved.

Defendant’s MIL No. 65

Defendants move to exclude arguments that there is no safe level of asbestos and every exposure contributes to a cumulative dose as unsupported by science and contrary to the law. This motion is too vague as Defendants do not identify any specific expert testimony to be excluded.

In addition, the motion would exclude arguments about the standard for proving causation and what “substantial factor” means. Under the July 8, 2022 CMO, motions to exclude expert opinion about the term “substantial factor” are deemed made and denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendant did not show good cause to depart from this order.

Defendant also argues OSHA and EPA reports are hearsay. This motion is too vague as Defendant did not identify any specific report to be excluded. If Plaintiffs ask to admit the reports for the truth of the matter asserted in them, Defendant can object at that time. However, an expert may rely on the reports even if they are hearsay. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 66

Defendant Mannington Mills moves to exclude all references to documents authored by Tarkett Inc. and any documents from Defendant in response to a document from Tarkett. This is too vague.

Defendant mentions two specific documents – a June 21, 1982 letter and a June 30, 1982 letter. Defendant states these documents are hearsay, irrelevant and confusing. If Plaintiffs are able to authenticate the two letters, they could be used for a non-hearsay purpose, such as notice of the dangers and hazards of asbestos (which is discussed in the letters). The court cannot predict whether Plaintiffs will be able to authenticate the letters. The letters are not irrelevant or confusing. If Plaintiffs attempt to admit the letters without first authenticating them and establishing a non-hearsay purpose or hearsay exception, Defendants should object then.

The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

Defendant’s MIL No. 67

Defendant Mannington Mills moves to exclude speculative testimony about removing flooring materials. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO. Defendant did not show good cause to depart from that order. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

The moving party is to give notice.