Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 21VECV01729, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21VECV01729    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: T



CASLAVKA V STATE FARM 21VECV01729

Tentative rulings on Motions in Limine filed by Defendant:

 

The court received 9 timely Motions in Limine filed by plaintiffs for the FSC set 3/22/2023.  Pursuant to local rules, motions in limine are to be filed on statutory notice to be heard at the time of the FSC.  Oppositions to these motions were due 9 court days prior to the hearing which would have been 3/9/2023.  No oppositions have been received.  The court issues its tentative rulings:

 

  1. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific topics or documents.  The answer to this motion is “it depends.”  It depends on what was asked, what was answered, whether a motion to compel was made, and/or whether the court ordered further responses.  Having not specific any particular witness deposition, or discovery request and response, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum.  As there is no specific witness referenced or any specific topics or documents referenced, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.
  2. The court grants the motion to exclude witnesses from the courtroom pursuant to Evidence Code section 777 except that both plaintiffs may be in the courtroom at any time and a corporate representative of State Farm (only 1 person may be designated for the entire trial, no substitutions during trial) may be in the courtroom at any time.  State Farm must designate that person prior to the start of voir dire.
  3. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific testimony and, therefore, finds the motion premature.  If and when there is an objectionable question, and a timely objection is made, the court will rule on it at that time.  However, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum.  As there is no specific witness referenced or any specific opinions or testimony referenced, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.
  4. The court denies the motion to prevent the mentioning of an amount of damages being discussed in voir dire.  It would be an abuse of discretion for the court to do so.
  5. The court does not approve of omnibus motions and cannot speculate what is meant by the motion.  As there is nothing specifically mentioned in terms of a particular conversation or a particular note or email or a particular letter, the court will not speculate.  It should not be left to each sides’ subjective determination of what constituted a “settlement discussion.”  In the abstract, the motions is denied without prejudice.  If there is something specific, it should be disclosed to the court.
  6. The court grants the motion to preclude the admission of evidence of the defendant’s profits or financial condition per CCP section 3295(d) until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding plaintiffs actual damages and finds that the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. 
  7. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific information.  The answer to this motion is “it depends.”  It depends on who the witness is, when the witness should have been identified and if not identified, why not, the role of the witness, etc. Having no specific any particular witness or discovery request or statute which would apply, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum.  Therefore, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.
  8. and 9.   The court is unclear about these motions.  There is mention that “the parties have already agreed that State Farm’s liability to Plaintiffs will be heard and determined in the first phase of the trial...”  The court has reviewed the court file and can find no stipulation and/or order concerning multiple phases of the trial or any stipulation or court order to bifurcate.  The court needs to be a part of this process.  The parties cannot determine these issues on their own.


 Tentative rulings on Motions in Limine filed by Plaintiffs:




The court received 3 timely Motions in Limine filed by plaintiffs for the FSC set 3/22/2023.  Pursuant to local rules, motions in limine are to be filed on statutory notice to be heard at the time of the FSC.  Oppositions to these motions were due 9 court days prior to the hearing which would have been 3/9/2023.  No oppositions have been received.  The court issues its tentative rulings:


 



  1. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific testimony and, therefore, finds the motion premature.  If and when there is an objectionable question, and a timely objection is made, the court will rule on it at that time.  However, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum.  As there is no specific witness referenced or any specific opinions or testimony referenced, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.

  2. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific topics or documents.  The answer to this motion is “it depends.”  It depends on what was asked, what was answered, whether a motion to compel was made, and/or whether the court ordered further responses.  Having not specific any particular witness deposition, or discovery request and response, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum.  As there is no specific witness referenced or any specific topics or documents referenced, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.

  3. The motion is denied without prejudice.  First, there is no evidence what a “State Farm uniform” means.  Second, there is no evidence that a jury may be likely to have a good experience with State Farm.  Why would there not likely be evidence that a jury may have had a bad experience with State Farm?  The question for the court is whether someone would be wearing something that they ordinarily be wearing to work, if this was a workday.  This is not the same situation as a law enforcement officer wearing a uniform. There is no explanation what the “extreme prejudice” might be. The court will hear argument but the tentative is to deny without further information.