Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: BC676456, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC676456    Hearing Date: August 22, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1

Plaintiffs move to exclude reference to former parties and the caption.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and granted, but not so as to affect any allocation of fault under Proposition 51.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Accordingly, the motion is granted to that extent.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

            Plaintiffs move to exclude “but for” testimony.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial. 

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3

            This motion seeks to exclude speculation about causes of the decedent’s mesothelioma and speculation about other exposures to asbestos.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Also, Plaintiff state that defense experts must meet the same standard of medical causation as plaintiffs.  (Motion at p. 4.)  In Kline v. Zimmer, Inc. (2002) 79 Cal.App.5th 123, the court held that when a defendant seeks to introduce causation opinions to challenge the causation opinion of the plaintiff’s expert rather than to prove an actual alternative cause, the defendant can offer “expert opinions offered to less than a reasonable medical probability that [the plaintiff’s] injuries may have been attributable to other causes.”  (Id. at p. 132.)  “Such defense expert opinions could cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of a plaintiff’s expert.  The jury is entitled to consider such evidence in deciding whether the plaintiff’s expert is exaggerating his or her opinion.”  (Ibid.)  Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs are seeking to exclude opinions from defense experts about other causes of the decedent’s illness that are offered to less than a reasonable medical probability, the motion is denied.

            Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4

            Plaintiffs move to exclude any evidence about genetics causing the mesothelioma.  This motion is vague because it does not identify any specific evidence to be excluded.  Also, as discussed above, Kline allows defense experts to opinion about other causes of the illness.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5

            Plaintiffs seek to exclude reference to asbestos in the air and the state rock of California. 

The motion to exclude reference to asbestos being in the air the jurors are breathing is vague.  Experts may refer to background asbestos.  Defendants state they are not going to tell the jury about the state rock.

            The motion is denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.

The moving party is to give notice.