Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 23STCV06764, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV06764, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 23STCV06764 Hearing Date: October 25, 2024 Dept: 1

TENTATIVE RULING – 10/25/24

Case: 23STCV06764 Molina, et al. v. Target Corporation

Order

On October 16, 2024, at the final status conference, the Honorable Anne Hwang, sitting in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse, determined this action to be a long cause matter and ordered counsel to complete and file the long cause package by October 17, 2024 at 2:00 PM, with paper courtesy copies directly to Department 1. (10/16/24 Minute Order.)

On October 18, 2024, after hearing, the Honorable Curtis A. Kin, sitting in Department 1 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, set a trial readiness conference for October 25, 2024 at 9:30 AM in Department 1. (10/18/24 Minute Order.) The Court ordered counsel to file and serve their long cause trial packet no later than 4:30 PM on October 22, 2024, and to deliver courtesy copies to Department 1, with the exception of exhibit binders. (10/18/24 Minute Order.) Jury trial in this action is set to commence on October 31, 2024. Per stipulation off the parties and the Court’s Order thereon, this matter has trial preference pursuant to CCP 36(b). (3/6/24 Stipulation and Order Re: Consolidation of Trials in Molina and Song Actions.)

The Court has reviewed the parties’ long cause trial submission and finds that the parties are not trial ready. The parties must address the following in their trial documents:

Amended Joint Witness List Filed on October 22, 2024

- As stated in the Long Cause Trial Package Guidelines, the parties must include a subtotal column, which contains the sum of each row, and a total column, which contains a running, cumulative total of the testimony.

- The parties must remove the column for redirect (Rx), which is not considered when determining whether a case qualifies for a long cause trial assignment.

- Several of the parties’ witnesses are improperly described by their title or relationship to the parties or incident, rather than by their expected testimony. (E.g., “Fact witness – Target Team Member with knowledge of events surrounding the incident,” “Treating doctor of plaintiff Molina,” “Retained orthopedic expert,” etc.) The parties’ descriptions must specifically describe the testimony to be offered, not the witnesses’ title or relationship to the parties or incident or a generic reference to having unspecified knowledge

- The parties must be trial ready and therefore must be able to identify all witnesses by name. Describing a witness as “Target Corp. PMQs Re: Origami and Tru Case” is not sufficient.

- The Court also notes that there are two plaintiffs in this action; however, the parties have not specifically identified whether Plaintiff Brayden Medina Molina or Plaintiff Joo Hye Song is calling a particular witness. The Amended Joint Witness List merely references “Plaintiff (776)” and “Plaintiff” which does not allow the Court to ascertain whether Plaintiff Molina, Plaintiff Song, or both are calling a particular witness.

Amended Joint Exhibit List Filed on October 22, 2024

- The parties must describe exhibits with greater specificity, i.e. specific subject matter, dates, participants, etc., and use separate exhibit numbers for the individual documents offered within broadly defined categories of documents.

- The Amended Joint Exhibit List contains what appear to be categorical or vague descriptions such as “Monsenor Oscar Romero Charter School” enrollment history, attendance details, and report card for Brayden Medina-Molina, (Ex. Nos. 145-146), “Monsenor Oscar Romero Charter School Behavior Trackers for Brayden Medina-Molina,” (Ex. No. 149), “Monsenor Oscar Romero Charter School Absences for Therapy for Brayden Medina-Molina,” (Ex. No. 150), “Medical Illustration: Summary of Physical Injuries for Brayden Medina Molina,” (Ex. No. 151), “Medical Illustration: Summary of Spine Injuries for Brayden Medina Molina,” (Ex. No. 152), “LAC+USC Radiology for Brayden Medina,” (Ex. No. 267), “LAC+USC Statement of Accounts for Joo Hye Song,” (Ex. No. 355), “Summary of Past Medical Expenses Chart and Attached Bills (Song),” (Ex. No. 356), “Medical Illustration: Summary of Physical Injuries of Joo Hye Song,” (Ex. No. 360), “Medical Illustration: Summary of Surgical Procedures of Joo Hye Song,” (Ex. No. 361), “LAC+USC Radiology Imaging for Joo Hye Song,” (Ex. No. 535), “LAPD Investigative Report,” (Ex. No. 598), “LAPD Follow-Up Investigation,” (Ex. No. 599), numerous forthcoming deposition excerpts and unidentified deposition exhibits for various experts, (Ex. Nos. 758, 762, 769, 775, 779, 786, 789, 792, 795, 801, 810, 814, 817, 820, 823).

- Each document, record, or photograph should be distinct with its own exhibit number and specific description. Using a single exhibit number for broad categories of documents, numerous photographs, or other records will cause needless confusion at trial, obscure the record, and cause an inefficient use of trial time as the parties attempt to direct a witness to a specific document among the numerous records or documents contained within the parties’ single exhibit number. To be trial ready, the parties must have completed all discovery and therefore must be able to identify and adequately describe each document in a given document production, record, or expert file they intend to offer at trial.

- The parties have not stipulated to the authenticity or admissibility of a single exhibit listed in the Amended Joint Exhibit List. While a case will not be rejected for a long cause trial assignment based upon a lack of such agreement, the Court encourages the parties to further meet and confer regarding their authenticity and admissibility stipulations. The standard for authentication is not rigorous and the parties should be able to reach an agreement as to the authenticity of many of the exhibits offered, including certified government documents and written discovery served in this action, among other items that should not be controversial.

- The parties are reminded “the objection that a document has not been authenticated does not go to the truth of the contents of the document,” (Interinsurance Exchange v. Velji (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 310, 318), and authentication objections to jointly offered exhibits lack merit. (See e.g. Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 856 (“some of the exhibits Defendants objected to were identical to documents Defendants had submitted . . . The Individual Defendants objected to these exhibits on authentication . . . Since Defendants had relied on this very same evidence, there was no merit to these objections.”). See also Hooked Media Group, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 323, 338 (“They are mostly e-mails bearing clear indicia that they are what Apple claims they are.”).) The stipulations, particularly as to authenticity where possible, promote the efficient administration of long cause trials.

Jury Instructions Filed on October 14, 2024

- The parties’ jury instructions do not place the CACI number above the preforation. As further directed by the Long Cause Trial Package Guidelines, the proposed jury instructions must be perforated, with the CACI number above the perforation, and the boxes above the perforation completed.

- Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.1055(c)(3), “[e]ach proposed instruction must: . . . (3) [b]e prepared without any blank lines or unused bracketed portions, so that it can be read directly to the jury.” Proposed Instructions Nos. 213 and 3904B do not comply with this requirement.

The parties are ORDERED to Meet and Confer and address the above-described deficiencies. Revised long cause trail submissions in accordance herewith shall be submitted by _________________________. Further status conference is scheduled in Department 1 for __________________________.