Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: BC592047, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC592047 Hearing Date: November 7, 2022 Dept: M
Tentative Rulings on Motions in Limine in Coleman v. Sagar et al., BC 592047
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
No. 1 (Referred to Doctors by an Attorney): Denied. The Court finds these facts are relevant, that their probative value is not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice, and that these facts are not protected by the attorney client privilege. The Court is open to stipulated specific language regarding the referral that does not reveal specific communications.
No. 2 (Expert Opinions): Denied without prejudice. The Court believes these will need to be ruled upon on a case-by-case basis.
No. 3 (Slip and Fall): Denied. The Court believes the matters to be relevant and may be considered by the finders of fact.
No. 4 (Defendant’s retirement, wealth, illness, and death): Granted in part. The jury may hear, pursuant to stipulated language, that defendant died subsequently to the accident due to causes unrelated to the accident.
No. 5 (John Hutton’s Affiliation with Alcoholics Anonymous): Granted (unopposed).
No. 6 (Medicare and Medi-Cal reimbursement rates): Denied. The court finds such matters relevant and that their probative value is not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. The arguments made by counsel as to their lack of relevance is appropriately made to the finder of fact rather than the Court.
No. 7 (Use of Methamphetamine): Granted pursuant to 352.
No. 8 (Exclude Video Surveillance): Granted (unopposed).
No. 9 (Earnings Evidence from March 15, 2015, to December 31, 2020): Denied. Such matters are clearly relevant and probative.
No. 10 (Testimony of First Responders): Denied without prejudice.
No. 11 (Attorney Drive Treatment): Denied. As to the first part of the motion, see ruling on MIL #1 above. As to the second part of the motion, insurance is irrelevant and more unduly prejudicial than probative.
No. 12 (Landman Testimony): The Court believes a 402 hearing is appropriate for this Motion.
No. 13 (Harter Testimony): The Court believes a 402 hearing is appropriate for this Motion.
No. 14 (Sanchez): Denied without prejudice. This must be ruled on with regard to specific testimony rather than the testimony as a whole, but the Court is aware that Sanchez applies to the experts’ testimony in this matter.
No. 15 (Medical License): Denied. The court finds such matters relevant and that their probative value is not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. The arguments made by counsel as to their lack of relevance is appropriately made to the finder of fact rather than the Court.
Defendants’ Motions in Limine
No. 1 (Sanchez): Granted without prejudice. See MIL #14 above.
No. 2 (precluding evidence of services billed until reasonableness evidence admitted): Denied. If no reasonableness evidence is presented, different relief may be sought.
No. 3 (precluding admission of police reports): Granted (unopposed).
No. 4 (Whitaker testimony): The Court believes a 402 hearing is appropriate for this Motion.