Judge: Rafael A. Ongkeko, Case: 19STCV40021, Date: 2023-02-28 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

Case Number: 19STCV40021    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: D

2/28/23

Dept. D

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

TRIAL:  Cadwell v. Kouns (19STCV40021)

TENTATIVE RULINGS RE MILs

All rulings subject to reconsideration if door is opened.

PLAINTIFF’S MIL 1:  [withdrawn]

PLAINTIFF’S MIL 2:  “RE CUMULATIVE MEDICAL TESTIMONY” specifically:  “preclude Plaintiffs (sic) experts’ duplicative and cumulative urologist (sic) testimony.”

According to Plaintiff:  Defendant designated Deven Khosla MD and Lorne Label MD to opine on Plaintiff’s physical condition, causation, and treatment. One is a neurological surgeon and another is a neurologist. They are both anticipated to testify regarding Plaintiff’s neurological condition in reference to the subject accident, specifically in reference to whether her occipital neuralgia was caused by the accident and what the treatment should be. To the extent that both physicians testify as to Plaintiff’s physical condition, causation, reasonableness of treatment, or any other issue, this is duplicative, cumulative, and prejudicial.

OPPN. There is nothing specific mentioned in the motion:  “… the focus of Dr. Khosla’s expert testimony and evidence will pertain to Plaintiff’s claimed spine injury, while the focus of Dr. Label’s expert testimony and evidence will pertain to Plaintiff’s claim of headaches.  Dr Khosla prefers that Dr Label comment on headaches, since Khosla does not specialize in headaches.” 

TENTATIVE:  DENY as non-specific and unsupported, without prejudice to specific trial objection.

PLTF MIL 3:  PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF CADWELL’S PRIOR CAR ACCIDENTS

No tentative.  Hear argument.

PLTF MIL 5:  PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE PHOTOGRAPHS

Plaintiff argues:  Because D does not dispute liability, there will be no testimony from any biomechanical experts or A/R experts correlating damage in the photos w/plaintiff’s injuries or lack of injuries, citing an OHIO Supreme Court case.

OPPN:  Low-speed, low impact, minimal damage crash.  Citing Christ v. Schwartz.

Tentative ruling:  DENY.  Relevant and no 352.

DEFENDANT’S MILs:

MIL#1:  for order precluding plaintiff from preconditioning the jury as to the dollar amount of damages

TENTATIVE RULING:

Ruling:

Grant, no specific dollar figure during voir dire or opening statement.

Suggest alternatives:  Any caps/upper limit, no matter the evidence?  “substantial”, 7 figures - are permissible.

DEFT MIL #2: [PLAINTIFF’S INSURANCE COMPANY RATES]

DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE/ PRECLUDE/ PROHIBIT EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL EXPENSES OTHER THAN THE RATE NEGOTIATED BY PLAINTIFF'S INSURANCE COMPANY

TENTATIVE:  Insufficient information.  Hear argument.

DEFT MIL #3: PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING/IMPOSING AN IMPROPER STANDARD OF CARE.

And

DEFT MIL #4:  EXCLUDE/PRECLUDE/PROHIBIT PLAINTIFF’S USE OF OR ARGUMENT REGARDING THE “GOLDEN RULE”

Ruling: 

1.      DENY.  MIL is too vague.  Denial is without prejudice to raising an objection to specific argument made by Plaintiff 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.

DEFT MIL #5:  PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT’S LIABILITY INSURANCE.

DEFT MIL #6:  PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S WEALTH OR ASSETS AT TRIAL.

DEFT MIL #7:  PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO SETTLEMENT OFFERS OR DISCUSSIONS

DEFT MIL #8:  PRECLUDE ALL PARTIES FROM SHOWING EXHIBIT BY POWERPOINT OR VIDEO WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING CONSENT OF THE COURT AND PERMITTING ALL OTHER PARTIES TO VIEW AND OBJECT

Tentative Ruling:  GRANT, conditionally:  Preview with opposing counsel and subject to court ruling on objections, if any.  Refer also to discussion at pre-voir dire conference regarding this topic.  Ruling does not apply to impeachment or rebuttal evidence.

DEFT. MIL #9:  TO PRECLUDE ALL COUNSEL FROM EXHIBITING FAMILIARITY WITH WITNESSES, PARTIES, OR OTHER COUNSEL AT TRIAL

DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 10 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT AND REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT FORCING PLAINTIFF TO GO TO TRIAL OR DELAYING THE TRIAL

Tentative:

GRANT in part.  No party shall raise directly or indirectly that the other is responsible for trial delays.

DENY remainder as non-specific and without prejudice to a trial objection.