Judge: Rafael A. Ongkeko, Case: BC713044, Date: 2023-03-08 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: BC713044    Hearing Date: March 8, 2023    Dept: D

3/08/23

Dept. D

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

 

TRIAL:  KING V. BRONSTRUP (BC713044)

 

TENTATIVE RULINGS RE MILs

All rulings subject to reconsideration if door is opened.

 

P’s MILs:

 

P MIL #1:  TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION

Ruling:  Unopposed.  GRANT.

P MIL #2:  TO EXCLUDE DR. BRIAN KING'S OPINIONS AS CUMULATIVE

Ruling:  DENY. 

P MIL #3:  TO EXCLUDE THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK THEORY FROM THE JURY

RULING:  DENY as premature.  Also, this is attempt to get an adjudication and is improper under Local Rule 3.57. 

 

P MIL #4:  TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL PROVIDERS NEGOTIATE LIENS

RULING:  DENY.  Discounting liens is relevant to rz. value issue before the jury; also no 352 issues because not time-consuming or confusing because FACT of discounting is all that is relevant, not necessarily the agreed amount of the discount in each unique case.

P MIL #5:  FOR AN EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 402 HEARING [on animations and a PowerPoint by D’s motorcycle expert Henricus Jensen]

RULING:  GRANT, but M&C to narrow the issue for the 402.

P MIL #6:  TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY ON THE FRIENDSHIP OF THE PARTIES

RULING:  GRANT.

D’s MILS: 

D MIL NO. 1: TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE

RULING:  GRANT.

 

D MIL #2:  MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 RE: “GOLDEN RULE”

RULING: GRANT as to Golden Rule, i.e., asking jurors to place themselves in Plaintiff’s shoes or how much they would take in P’s place.  Anything else, too general. DEFER to trial without prejudice to raising objection to specific argument concerning attempts to replace the proper legal standards.  If more closely aligned to Golden Rule/community or self-interest/self-protection argument, or preconditioning during voir dire, will sustain if an objection is made.  

 

D MIL #3:  MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE FROM EVIDENCE OFFERS TO COMPROMISE

RULING:  GRANT.

D MIL #4:  MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO PRECLUDE ALL PARTIES FROM INTRODUCING ANY WITNESSES, EVIDENCE OR CONTENTIONS NOT DISCLOSED IN WRITTEN DISCOVERY OR AT THE TIME OF DEPOSITION

RULING: DENY as non-specific, but w/o prejudice to trial objection and/or 402, or  to Kennemur objection. 

 

D MIL #5:  MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE ALL PARTIES FROM DISCUSSING ANY DAMAGES, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL, DURING VOIR DIRE

RULING:  DENY as phrased. [motion clarifies:] GRANT as to mention of a specific dollar figure during v.d.  b/c 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.  BUT:  Suggest alternatives:  Any upper limit, no matter the evidence?  “substantial”, 7 figures OK, etc.

 

D MIL #6:  DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL EXPENSES IN EXCESS OF AMOUNTS ACTUALLY PAID AND/OR ACCEPTED BY WAY OF DISCOUNT

WITHDRAWN.

D MIL #7:  EXCLUDE VISUAL PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IN OPENING OR CLOSING STATEMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN AND APPROVED BY OPPOSING COUNSEL

RULING:  GRANT, as per discussion with counsel at the FSC/pre-voir dire conference.

D MIL #8:  INADMISSIBILITY OF MEDICAL REPORTS AND RECORDS WITHOUT PROPER FOUNDATION

RULING:  GRANT as to medical reports/records; MOOT as to medical bills per stip.

D MIL #9:  TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CLAIMS FOR INJURIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ACCIDENT

RULING:  GRANT.  Multiple 352 issues.