Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: SC122575, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC122575    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: R

Plaintiff filed five in limine motions.  None are opposed.  It is not clear whether all of these MIL’s continue to be active given that defendant has settled with all but one defendant.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine (MIL) 1 is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s MIL 2 is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s MIL 3 DENIED without prejudice.  Plaintiff’s MIL 4 is DENIED without prejudice.  Plaintiff’s MIL 5 is DENIED.  This is really a discovery motion seeking terminating sanctions.  Motions in limine are not the proper vehicle for that.  (It is true that an MIL need not be related to evidence, but it is not really a substitute for a motion for terminating discovery sanctions, either.)  It could well be that the Court will consider any RFA’s to which no response has been made to be admitted because that is something over which the Court generally has little or no discretion in the regular course of things.  And the Court may consider an evidentiary type of sanction barring Cavewynter from testifying in this matter.

Where a motion is denied without prejudice, it means that the motion did not, on its face, make out a case for exclusion.  But the Court is reserving judgment as to whether the evidence is in fact relevant or should be excluded under section 352 because the Court believes it needs to have a better context than the papers provided to make that determination.

A number of trial documents were filed on February 7, 2023.  They are likely going to be STRICKEN as untimely.  Plaintiff's trial brief is also untimely.