Judge Rafael A. Ongkeko, Case 19STCV22311 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Note:
The court's tentative rulings, as posted, will not have the same formatting "look" as the court's original Word version.
A pdf version of the latter will be available in court to those appearing in person or by email upon request made to the clerk before the hearing for those appearing remotely.
Dept. D contact information:
Email: samdeptd@lacourt.org.
Phone: (310) 255-2483

Generally: Defendants failed to meaningfully meet and confer before filing defense MILs 1-8. Trial was continued thereafter, giving the parties additional time to meet and confer and allowing Plaintiffs weeks to file opposition papers. Only recently did the parties inform the court of any meaningful attempts to reach informal resolutions on just a few of the mostly boilerplate, non-specific MILs filed by both sides. The court may consider setting a post-trial OSC re sanctions should similar non-compliance occur hereafter.

PLAINTIFFS’ MIL (1) TO ALLOW MINI-OPENING STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P 222.5 AND TO USE OF DEMONSTRATIVES DURING OPENING STATEMENT

Ruling: GRANT as to stipulated 3-minute mini-opening before voir dire (and therefore eliminate statement of case(?).

GRANT as to showing the designated exhibits/demonstratives during opening statement. Any others will be conditioned on timely sharing before opening statement in time for court to hear disputed items and rule on any objections.

PLAINTIFFS’ MIL (2) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY NOT TREATING THROUGH HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PAST MEDICAL CARE:

PLAINTIFF'S MIL (3) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF HEALTH INSURANCE OR MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES TO DISCOUNT PLAINTIFFS’ PAST AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES

Ruling: GRANT. Also, stay away from attorneys’ desire to have lien-based bills inflated.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL (4) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFFS WERE REFERRED TO DOCTORS BY AN ATTORNEY, PERSONAL ATTACKS ON PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY AND/OR THAT PLAINTIFFS TREATED ON LIEN

1. Exclude evidence that plaintiffs were referred to doctors by an attorney- DENY.

Plaintiffs' request that evidence of all insurance be precluded- GRANT. See Ps MIL #2.

DEFENDANT’S MIL (8) TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL BILLS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS PAID

For future discussion, the court proposes the following instructions on this subject:

Past and future economic damages for medical treatment or services is measured by

The reasonable value of economic losses or damages is the market or exchange value of goods or services, that is, the amount that a reasonable seller of such goods or services would accept and a reasonable buyer of such goods or services would pay, where neither the seller nor the buyer is compelled to enter into the transaction.

1. An Order preventing Defendants and their experts from publishing, referencing, or admitting medical record hearsay into evidence without the proper foundation- GRANT.

2. An Order precluding Defendants and their attorneys from eliciting and the Defense Experts from reciting to the jury as bases for their opinions, case-specific hearsay statements contained in the hundreds of pages of Plaintiffs' health-related records. DENY as non-specific and premature; grant 402 hearing if requested.

3. An Order precluding Defendants and their attorneys from eliciting and the Defense Experts from reciting to the jury any and all evidence, references to evidence, opinions, testimony, questions or argument relating to Plaintiffs' unrelated medical conditions contained in the hundreds of pages of Plaintiffs' health-related records. DENY as non-specific and premature; grant 402 hearing if requested.

4. An Order excluding any and all evidence, references to irrelevant medical records relating to 11 unrelated medical issues and treatment thereof. DENY as non-specific and premature; grant 402 hearing if requested.

GRANT exclusion of any subrosas that existed up until close of discovery (date __?_ ).

DENY as to subrosas obtained thereafter subject to a 402 of videographer/editor/etc. regarding authentication, foundation, relevance, and 352 issues based on proffer and actual content to establish close-of-discovery argument and possibly any privacy issues. Initially, there will be no required disclosure of all footage; all issues regarding selective taping are still subject to cross but are not preconditions to publication and admissibility. However, in rebuttal, Ps must then establish that the selected clips shown are somehow misleading or need to be shown to comply with EC 356’s completeness doctrine and to explain why the clips are taken out of context or misleading.

Ruling: Deny as non-specific, but without prejudice to a trial objection based on prejudice and surprise.

DEFENDANT’S MIL (1) TO EXCLUDE ANY AND ALL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE NOT PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY BY PLAINTIFFS

Ruling: Same as Ps’ MIL #7.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE #9 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS' EXPERT WITNESSES TO THOSE OPINIONS TESTIFIED TO AT THEIR DEPOSITIONS AND TO PREVENT THE PRESENTATION OF CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO LIMIT PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS’ TESTIMONY TO THOSE OPINIONS DISCLOSED AT DEPOSITION AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BASED UPON MATERIALS NOT REVIEWED OR DISCLOSED DURING EXPERT WITNESS DISCOVERY;

Ruling: Parties stipulate- GRANT.

Parties to lodge depositions.

PLAINTIFF CHARISA WARE'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALTERNATE CAUSE OF HER CLAIMED INJURIES (f)9/1/22

DEFENDANT’S MIL (1) TO EXCLUDE ANY AND ALL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE NOT PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY BY PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANT’S MIL (2) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT OF THE “GOLDEN RULE”

DEFENDANT’S MIL (4) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT OF THE “REPTILE THEORY” (including “asking the jury to use their verdict to “send a message,” or act as the “conscience of the community.”)

Ruling: DENY. MIL is too vague. Denial is without prejudice to raising an objection to specific argument made by Plaintiffs that arguably replaces an applicable legal standard in this case. If more closely aligned to Golden Rule/community or self-interest argument, OR PRECONDITIONING during voir dire, the court will sustain a timely objection from the defense.

DEFENDANT’S MIL (5) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, specifically, “the impact of Covid 19 on Ps’ damages and the effect of the pandemic on Ps’ case.”

Ruling: GRANT in PART as to arguments and evidence regarding justice delayed due to Covid-related reason; otherwise, DEFER to trial.

DEFENDANT’S MIL (6) TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FROM PRECONDITIONING JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE AND OPENING STATEMENTS WITH HYPOTHETICAL OR DOLLAR FIGURES SPECIFIC TO THE CASE (“ANCHORING”)

Ruling: GRANT re mentioning a specific dollar figure during voir dire because no evidence yet, approaches preconditioning without reference to fairness, bias, or impartiality, and what evidence it may even be based on. Asks jurors to speculate, hypothesize, and commit without relevance to being fair or not. The court suggests alternatives: Acceptable to ask about caps, any upper limit, no matter the evidence; use terms like “substantial,” 7 figures, etc. Defense may question regarding awarding zero damages.

DEFENDANT’S MIL (7) TO LIMIT PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS’ TESTIMONY TO THOSE

OPINIONS DISCLOSED AT DEPOSITION AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BASED UPON MATERIALS NOT REVIEWED OR DISCLOSED DURING EXPERT WITNESS DISCOVERY

DEFENDANT’S MIL (8) TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL BILLS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS PAID

DEFENDANTS’ MIL NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF ANITA J. BREWER’S CANCER DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT