Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV32478, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32478 Hearing Date: November 22, 2024 Dept: 47
HOUANG v. STERLING, Case No. 22STCV32478
Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1,
seeking exclusion of all evidence, argument, etc., referencing Donald Sterling
TENTATIVE RULING: Denied. Based on discussions with counsel, the
Court concluded that the better course is to instruct the jury that Defendant
Rochelle Sterling is the wife of Donald Sterling, the former owner of the Los
Angeles Clippers professional basketball team, but that he has no interest in
the property at issue in this case nor any involvement in its management or
maintenance.
TENTATIVE
RULING: Denied in part.
Plaintiffs are entitled to offer testimony or other evidence tending to
show that Defendant Rochelle Sterling was negligent in her oversight of
Plaintiffs’ apartment because she and her property managers supervised scores
of apartment buildings and complexes without adequate staff or resources, but
not to otherwise offer evidence referring to Defendant’s assets, wealth, or
financial condition.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3,
seeking exclusion of all evidence, argument, etc., concerning unrelated
litigation against Defendant or her agents, representatives, or family members.
TENTATIVE RULING: Denied, without prejudice. The motion does not identify any “unrelated
litigation” sought by Plaintiff to be offered as evidence in this case and,
thus, cannot conduct any analysis of its admissibility, relevance, or
prejudicial value. Accordingly, no
meaningful order can be issued based on the motion submitted.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4,
seeking exclusion of all evidence, argument, etc., concerning any insurance held
by Defendant covering the property at issue.
TENTATIVE RULING: Granted. Such evidence is not relevant, and any
minimal relevance it may have is outweighed by its prejudicial impact and
likelihood to consume undue time.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 5,
seeking exclusion of any opinion evidence or testimony by Plaintiff Ken,
Shelley, or Liam Kenneith Hoang as to the cause and/or source of Plaintiffs’
claimed health conditions.
TENTATIVE RULING: Granted in part. Plaintiffs are not qualified to give expert
opinions about whether their medical conditions were caused by contact with
mold or cockroaches on the subject property but they may testify to their
exposure to such conditions, the prevalence of these conditions on the
premises, the emergence or exacerbation of their medical conditions after
moving into the subject premises or in reaction to specific exposures or
incidents, and the distinctions between their sensory reactions and medical
conditions before moving into the subject premises and afterwards. Plaintiffs
can, thus, offer testimony about the correlation between the housing conditions
and their symptoms as a way to show a potential link between them that is
probative of causation.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 6, seeking to exclude any
evidence not disclosed during discovery.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Denied, without prejudice.
In general, a party who has
responded to formal written discovery has no affirmative duty to supplement its
responses when new information comes into its possession. (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124
Cal.App.4th 1315, 1318–1319, 1328.)
“[A]bsent unusual circumstances, such as repeated and egregious
discovery abuses,” courts will not impose an evidentiary sanction for a failure
to disclose unless there has been a “willful” failure to disclose. (Id., at p. 1327.) Here, there has been no showing that any of
Plaintiff’s discovery responses were willfully false or incomplete. (Id., at p. 1323-1324.) Nor have Defendants pointed to any violation
of a court order directing Plaintiff to provide further answers to Defendants’
discovery. Here, Defendants have made no
effort to show that any non-disclosure by Plaintiffs was willful or that the
failure to disclose violated a court order.
Moreover, the evidence
provided by Defendant does not support the broad exclusion order sought. For example, Drs. Chang, Sosa, McMahon,
McNulty, Perpich, and Glood are in fact identified in response to Form
Interrogatory No. 6.5 as physicians who prescribed various medications. Form Interrogatory No. 6.7 asks for the
identity of physicians who advised there was a need for future or additional treatment, so to the extent that the treating
doctors identified by Plaintiffs on their witness list intend to offer evidence
about past treatment, diagnoses, causation or prognoses, the
testimony would not fall within the scope of that form question. What is more, Plaintiffs advanced a series of
objections to each form interrogatory, including by challenging the use of the
term INCIDENT as vague and ambiguous.
Having failed to move to compel complete answers without objections,
Defendant cannot claim that Plaintiffs have willfully withheld evidence or the
names of percipient witnesses. In
addition, all the supposedly non-disclosed physicians are explicitly mentioned
in the list of non-retained experts in Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness
Designation. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. C.)
Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 8,
seeking to exclude any references to Plaintiffs’ earlier unsuccessful
pregnancy.
TENTATIVE RULING: Denied, without prejudice to
asserting objections to extensive testimony about the prior pregnancy.
The Court agrees that Shelley Houang’s previous failed
pregnancy and the couple’s trauma over losing that child is relevant to the
quality and extent of the emotional distress they suffered because of Liam’s
exacerbated eczema conditions, their hypervigilance in tracking Liam’s medical
conditions, and as an explanation for the number of medical interventions and
visits they arranged for Liam’s care.
The relevance of the prior pregnancy as probative evidence about the
parents’ behaviors and reactions outweighs any prejudice that Defendant will
experience, so long as the description of the lost pregnancy and its aftermath
is limited in scope and detail. This can
be controlled by timely objections at trial and, thus, is not an appropriate
target for a pretrial evidentiary ruling.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 9, seeking to limit
Plaintiffs’ cumulative use of photos during opening and trial.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Granted in part.
Even if the photographs and videos depict different
flareups by different Plaintiffs, it is not necessary to offer 361 photographs
and 7 videos to convey the nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ injuries. Plaintiffs should choose a reasonable
selection of photographs for presentation at trial cognizant of the fact that,
if they offer too many, their ability to introduce additional photographs will
be limited by Defendants’ justifiable objections that they are cumulative. Further, the Court will hear argument on the
content and length of the videos to determine whether some or all of the
footage will be allowed to be shown at trial.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 10, seeking to exclude or
limit Plaintiff Liam Houang’s trial testimony.
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Court will hold a hearing under Evidence Code section 402 to
determine the probative value, if any, of Liam’s testimony about events and
conditions that existed between 2 and 3 years ago, when the child was only 2 or
3 years old. His testimony raises
serious concerns because of his likely inability to identify the timeframe for
events and conditions he experienced and the unacceptable prospect of testing
his memory through cross-examination at trial before a score of adults.