Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 20SMCP00231, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

The Court generally uploads tentative rulings the morning of the hearing.  Because of that, the parties cannot submit on the tentative the night before and not appear.  However, if after reviewing the tentative ruling ALL COUNSEL submit, they should tell the Court's judicial assistant when checking in and the Court will endeavor to either not hear the case in light of the submission or, if the Court believes that a hearing is still needed for some other reason, then the Court will be inclined to give priority.

In some cases, tentative rulings may be given by email the morning of the hearing rather than on the tentative ruling site.  Please check your email if you have not seen the tentative.  The email is generally sent to the persons who have signed up for a remote hearing.

For those appearing in the courtroom, the Court will provide a hard copy of the tentative ruling. 

Case Number: 20SMCP00231    Hearing Date: February 1, 2023    Dept: R

The case is here for a FSC.  An FSC order was issued on February 7, 2022.  This court amplified that order on October 26, 2022.  Both parties have waived jury.

The court has received plaintiff’s MIL and will be prepared to rule when this case is deemed ready for trial.

The court is in receipt of defendant’s trial brief, filed January 27, 2023.

On January 26, 2023, the court received the following documents: (1) Joint Witness List (22 witnesses; 20.5 hours direct; 24.5 hours cross); (2) Joint Exhibit List (140 exhibits, including some demonstratives, many stipulated as to admissibility, some objections); (3) Joint Deposition Chart.

The court has not received plaintiff’s trial brief.

Although the court has not received plaintiff’s trial brief, the court is familiar with the case such that the failure to file that brief may not be an impediment to trial.  As such, the court will inquire of the parties whether they are ready to proceed.  If they are, the court will ask them to wait until all of the final status conferences are complete at which time the court will determine the order of trial from among those ready to go forward.

The court has also reviewed the MIL.  Plaintiff’s MIL is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  This is a bench trial; the court will be able to separate any improper purpose of the evidence in question.  From the record thus far, the court cannot tell whether the evidence is truly relevant for anything—specifically defendants seem to contend that plaintiff’s actions were designed not simply to enrich himself but to harm the company even beyond any financial benefit plaintiff might receive.  That said, the court can easily see how this can get out of hand and quickly.  If it appears that defendants intend to spend more than a very short time on this topic, the court will quickly start sustaining 352 objections.  Plaintiff does make a reasonably strong argument that the goal is really a smear campaign and not really related to the case.  If plaintiff is correct, defendants should carefully consider the effect that will have on the overall case given that it is tried to the court.  Such an improper purpose would say volumes about defendants’ good faith here and whether their merits arguments are being made in good faith.