Judge: Rafael A. Ongkeko, Case: BC686629, Date: 2023-04-14 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: BC686629    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: D

TRIAL: 

Tovar v. Rangel (BC686629)

Plaintiff’s MILs:

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1:  TO ALLOW COUNSEL TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC SUMS DURING VOIR DIRE, AND STRIKE FOR CAUSE JURORS WHO STATE THEY CANNOT AWARD A SUM OF DAMAGES EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE PROVES IT

TENTATIVE: DENY re mentioning a specific dollar figure during voir dire because no evidence yet, approaches preconditioning and locking in jurors 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.

 

PLAINTIFF’S MIL #2:  TO PRECLUDE ANY PRE-SET TIME LIMITATIONS ON VOIR DIRE AND TO PERMIT A MINI-OPENING STATEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP 222.5 RULING: 

Oppn:  NONE.

TENTATIVE:  GRANT, as further discussed with counsel at the pre-voir dire conference.  

DEFT’S MILs

Defendant’s MIL #1:  TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL FROM IMPLEMENTING THE “REPTILE THEORY” OR MAKING “GOLDEN RULE” ARGUMENT

TENTATIVE: 

1.      DENY in part.  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.

2.      GRANT in part as to “Golden Rule.”

 

 

D’s MIL#2:  TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY

 

TENTATIVE: DENY as vague without prejudice to trial objection or 402.

 

D’s MIL #3:  TO EXCLUDE SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE OF FUTURE SURGERY OR TREATMENT

TENTATIVE:  DENY as non-specific, without prejudice to trial objection or 402.

 

D's MIL #4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENSE EXPERT’S MEDICAL TREATMENT

 

TENTATIVE:  GRANT.

 

 

D’s MIL #5 TO LIMIT OPINIONS OF DR. BABAK SAMIMI AT TRIAL

 

TENTATIVE:  MOOT?  Otherwise, DENY as unsupported, without prejudice to a 402 if necessary.  Demonstratives should be disclosed well before the witness testifies

 

 

 

D’s MIL #6 TO EXCLUDE “DAMAGE WITNESSES” NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY

 

TENTATIVE:  TBD- DISCUSS in connection with D’s objections to the joint witness list.