Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: BC719086, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC719086    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs’ MIL No.

            Plaintiffs seek to exclude the caption of the complaint and the fact that other defendants are no longer involved in the case.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and granted “but such order does not affect any allocation of fault under Proposition 51.”  Defendant did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Therefore the motion is granted but this order does not affect any allocation of fault under Proposition 51.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2

            This motion seeks to exclude evidence and arguments about “but for” causation.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied so long as the trial court intends to use CACI 435.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Therefore the motion is denied so long as the trial court intends to use CACI 435, without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3

            This motion seeks to exclude speculation about exposure.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Therefore the motion is denied, without prejudice to objections at trial.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4

            Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence and argument that genetics caused Plaintiff’s disease.  This motion is vague because it does not identify specific evidence to be excluded.

Also, 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. 5

Plaintiffs seek to exclude reference to asbestos in the air.  This motion is vague.  Experts may refer to background asbestos. 

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

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 6

            Plaintiffs move to exclude speculative testimony about Mladen Buntich Construction Co. following safety standards.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, motions to exclude speculation are deemed made and denied.  Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order.

            Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s testimony lacks foundation.  If Defendant is asked a question lacking foundation at trial, Plaintiffs should object at that time.

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

Defendants’ MIL No. 1

            Defendants seek to exclude non-expert witness from testifying about the asbestos content in any product.  Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied without prejudice to a contemporaneous objection at trial.  Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order. 

            Therefore, this motion is denied without prejudice to an objection at trial. 

The moving party is to give notice.