Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: BC675206, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC675206    Hearing Date: November 7, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

            Because all of the parties’ motions in limine are addressed in the July 8, 2022 CMO, the parties did not need to file those motions.  One of the purposes of the CMO is to save attorney and judicial resources.  That objective will be undermined if parties continue to file proforma motions (the same motions the parties file in every case with just the plaintiff’s name changed) already addressed in the CMO. 

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence that other defendants were sued but are not at trial.  The July 8, 2022 CMO deems this motion made and granted except not to affect any allocation of fault under Proposition 51.  The parties did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Therefore the motion is granted except not so as to affect any allocation of fault under Proposition 51.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of insurance coverage or collateral source benefits.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and granted.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from the order.  Therefore the motion is granted, except as to evidence of insurance to establish the actual amount paid of any medical bill.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3

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

            Therefore the motion is granted

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

            Defendants seek to exclude evidence from the Saranac experiment in 1938 that mentions Experiment 774 observation of tumors in mice; characterizes Dr. Gardner’s observation of tumors in mice as providing proof or notice of a causal relationship between asbestos and cancer; refers to tumors or cancer in connection with Saranac research co-sponsored by Abex; or suggests Abex concealed or suppresses scientific results from Experiment 774.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and granted.

            Plaintiffs argue the experiments show notice and that Pneumo Abex was sophisticated enough in the 1930s to be aware of the hazards of asbestos exposure.  Plaintiffs do not address the July 8, 2022 CMO or the specific issues raised in Defendants’ motion about flawed data in connection with Experiment 774.  Therefore, Plaintiffs failed to show good cause to depart from the July 8, 2022 CMO.

            The motion is granted.

            The moving party is to give notice.