PLAINTIFF S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Similar documents
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY

PREPARING FOR TRIAL. 3. Opponent s experts identified, complete Rule 26 responses received and, if possible and necessary, experts have been deposed.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

EVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS. Laurie Vahey, Esq.

Evidence Study & Review Session One Learning from Multiple Choice

Clarification Questions and Answers

A JUDGE S PERSPECTIVE ON EVIDENCE. (Basic Tools of Your New Trade) W. David Lee. Senior Resident Superior Court Judge.

SUMMARY JURY TRIAL PART: QUEENS COUNTY SUPREME COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNIFORM PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Civil No. 1:13-CV-1211 vs. GLS/TWD Andrew Cuomo, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC

Case4:07-cv PJH Document1171 Filed05/29/12 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL JURY TRIALS BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE JON S.

Sri McCam ri Q. August 16, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION LAW 101 March 1, 2012, 4:00p.m. Courtroom M1404 ASK A PROPER QUESTION - FACTUAL AND EXPERT WITNESSES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIST OF CHAPTERS. Joseph J. Mellon, Esq. Thomas J. Tomazin, Esq. Lorraine E. Parker, Esq. Lauren E. Sykes, Esq. Krista Maher, Esq.

Response To Motions In Limine, Knuth v. City of Lincoln et al, Docket No. 3:11-cv (C.D. Ill. Jul 01, 2011)

Preparing for the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE)

CASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO. : Plaintiff : vs. : FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER : Case No. Defendant :

Meredith, Graeff, Arthur,

) Cause No. 1:14-cv-937-WTL-DML. motions are fully briefed and the Court, being duly advised, resolves them as set forth below.

Evidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq.

E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G-84481

Case 1:15-cv LTS Document 29 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 7

ABOTA MOTIONS IN LIMINE SEMINAR

Purpose of a Deposition

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT FIVE JUDGE COLLEEN K. STERNE. Departmental Requirements and Procedures

CASE NUMBER: UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL; PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRETRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Department 16 has prepared this document to assist counsel in scheduling motions and reporters in Department 16.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA DEPARTMENT 34 STANDING ORDER RE: ISSUE CONFERENCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:13-CV-529-RJC-DCK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON BUSINESS COURT DIVISION. via telephone (check one) /

RESPONDENT MOTHER'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

Massachusetts Premises Liability

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL; PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRETRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 19, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza J.

Written materials by Jonathan D. Sasser

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL

Siegel v Engel Burman Senior Hous. at E. Meadow, LLC 2010 NY Slip Op 33833(U) October 21, 2010 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 6709/09 Judge:

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (LIVE) (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:01-cv JCH

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER (JURY TRIAL) for Plaintiff.

UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRE-TRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED

The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series

IN THE COURT OF COMMON P 3 15 CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIo'n, rr niirts

On Appeal from the Office of Workers Compensation Administration District 9 Docket No

INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE LOUIS L. STANTON

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DEBORAH KELLY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NEW WEST FEDERAL SAVINGS et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (El Paso) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:02-cv DB

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

Case 1:10-cv MEA Document 284 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:11-cv JRG Document 608 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 32534

FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT

Judicial Practice Preferences Circuit Civil/Section 11

Chapter 02 THE COURT SYSTEM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

P R E T R I A L O R D E R

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER. Defendant s Biomechanical Expert Witness

CROSS EXAMINATION AND IMPEACHMENT AS PRACTICE TOOLS. Traci A. Owens

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO

CBA Municipal Court Pro Bono Panel Program Municipal Procedure Guide 1 February 2011

Docket Number: 1150 GREEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Paul A. Logan, Esquire (co-counsel) CLOSED VS.

Expedited Jury Trials

RAWAA FADHEL, as Parent and Next Friend of KAWTHAR O. ALI, a Minor. v. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Consider Hearsay Issues Before A Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

If this opinion indicates that it is FOR PUBLICATION, it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

Zuniga v TJX Cos., Inc NY Slip Op 32484(U) November 21, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Carmen Victoria

Rules of Evidence (Abridged)

TIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE RELEVANCE

MICHAEL P. LAFFEY Attorney at Law

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR THE AUTOMOBILE CASE: MEDIATION, ARBITRATION AND SUMMARY JURY TRIALS

Superior Court of California County of Orange

Cislo & Thomas LLP Litigation Cost Control (LCC ) Stages of Litigation and Expected Fees and Costs

Plaintiffs : : vs. : NO ,389 : SUSQUEHANNA IMAGING : ASSOCIATES, INC.; RICHARD D. : WALTER, M.D.; and PATRICK : J. CAREY, D.O.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT C17 LAW AND MOTION AND TRIAL PROCEDURES JUDGE GLENDA SANDERS

Third, it should provide for the orderly admission of evidence.

Case 9:01-cv MHS-KFG Document 72 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1935

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Impeachment in Louisiana State Courts:

Commonwealth of Massachusetts HAMPDEN SUPERIOR COURT Case Summary Civil Docket

FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2016

INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES Nelson S. Román, United States District Judge. Courtroom Deputy Clerk

PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY

Judicial Assistant s > ALWAYS copy opposing counsel(s) on correspondence to the Court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION. v. C.A. NO. C

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 2422 Filed: 04/01/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:64352

EVIDENCE. Professor Franks. Final Examination, Fall 2013 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Transcription:

MCDONALD V. STERN 15CVP-0021 PLAINTIFF S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO. DESCRIPTION RULING 1 FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS DEFENDANTS' ADMISSIONS MADE IN RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES (4-24-17) 2 FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S ADMISSIONS REGARDING THE SERVICES IT PERFORMED IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION(4-24-17) 3 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' RESPECTIVE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (4-24-17) 4 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW(4-24-17) GRANTED, except as to Request for Admissions No. 2. No opposition. GRANTED, except for expert opinions obtained in depositions after Feb. 2017 GRANTED, no expert shall testify to ultimate conclusion of law. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS' LACK OF WEALTH (4-24-17) GRANTED, foundational evidence is permitted. 6 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY BY BRAD SPENCE (4-24-17) (See Stern s #2) 7 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF LACK OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS OR COMPLAINTS REGARDING DEFENDANT, BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC. (4-24-17) 1

8 TO EXCLUDE ANY QUESTION OR COMMENT ON ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS FAITH FOLLOWED BY PLAINTIFF'S LIABILITY EXPERT, KEN MARTIN 9 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF S COLLATERAL SOURCE PAYMENTS FROM WORKERS COMPENSATION AND REFERENCE TO WORKERS COMPENSATION EXAMS AND PROCEEDINGS 10 EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY ROMERO, M.D. REGARDING OPINIONS NOT STATED IN DEPOSITION 11 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MISUSE OF A PRODUCT GRANTED, unless & until Mr. Martin opens the door through his testimony. DENIED, however Dr. Romero is to be produced for further deposition before he testifies at trial. 12 TO EXCLUDE ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY BY LEE PIATEK, M.D. ** PLAINTIFF FILED ON 4-19-18 A SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL BRIEF RE: PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS CUSTOM AND PRACTICE IN A STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE 2

DEFT STERN/CAL SUN MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO. DESCRIPTION RULING 1 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING EXPERT ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION OPINIONS; GRANTED 2 FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY FROM LAY WITNESSES; GRANTED (See Plt s #6) 3 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING LAY WITNESSES ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION TESTIMONY OR, ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE 402 HEARING; 4 FOR AN ORDER MANDATING ADVANCE NOTICE OF TESTIFYING WITNESSES; DENIED without prejudice GRANTED, to the extent consistent with the Court s trial policy (See Brad s #2). 5 AUTHORIZING USE OF PARTY DEPOSITIONS IN OPENING STATEMENT GRANTED, for use of adverse party depos only (subject to trial time limits) 6 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PURPORTED IMPEACHMENT EXPERT WITNESSES SOLELY TO CONTRADICT EXPERT OPINIONS; 7 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING CROSS EXAMINATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES WITH DOCUMENTS NEITHER RELIED UPON BY THE EXPERTS NOR ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE 8 FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING NON-PARTY WITNESSES FROM THE COURTROOM UNLESS THEY ARE TESTIFYING DENIED, without prejudice. Use of impeachment expert will require specific offer of proof. GRANTED, subject to Court s discretion. GRANTED, at the Court s discretion. (See Brad s #3) 3

9 FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OF SUITS AND/OR CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS' EXPERTS TO EXCLUDE CHARACTER EVIDENCE; 10 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OR PROFITS; DENIED as to evidence of suits against experts. DENIED, without prejudice as to character evidence. GRANTED (See Plt s #5) 11 LIMINE FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE GRANTED (unless triggered by issue raised in Plt s #5) (See Brad s #1) 12 FOR AN ORDER PREVENTING PREFERRED EMPLOYER INSURANCE COMPANY FROM CALLING ANY LIABILITY EXPERTS; MOOT. 13 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING ANY REFERENCE TO PHOTOGRAPHS, DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHOUT ESTABLISHING FOUNDATION AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DOCUMENTS OR BY STIPULATION 14 FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OF OFFERS OF SETTLEMENT OR SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS GRANTED, at the Court s discretion. 15 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING ANY REFERENCE TO LIABILITY INSURANCE DURING VOIR DIRE; (See Brad s #1) 16 FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED CLAIMS OR SUITS GRANTED, if a party believes a claim or suit is related, Court order is needed before attempting to admit is made. 4

DEFENDANT BRAD S OVERHEAD DOOR MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO. DESCRIPTION RULING 1 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO INSURANCE AND/OR INSURANCE COVERAGE 2 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO REQUIRE 24-HOUR COURT DAY NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CALL WITNESS TO TESTIFY 3 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES FROM THE COURTROOM UNTIL CALLED TO TESTIFY 4 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERTS TO THOSE OPINIONS AND FACTS TESTIFIED TO AT THE TIME OF THEIR DEPOSITIONS 5 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE UNDISCLOSED WITNESSES 6 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO LIMIT EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S PURPORTED MEDICAL SPECIAL DAMAGES TO THE AMOUNTS ACTUALLY PAID 7 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT STERN'S NON-QUALIFIED EXPERT WITNESS GEORGE WHITE 8 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO PRECLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO CHAD STERN, D/B/A CAL SUN ELECTRIC & SOLAR SYSTEMS AS A "CROSS COMPLAINANT" 9 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE PUBLISHED ARTICLES 10 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 TO PRECLUDE ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY AND/OR EVIDENCE BY PLAINTIFF PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY GRANTED (unless triggered by issue raised in Plt s #5) (See Stern s #11 & #15) GRANTED, to the extent consistent with the Court s trial policy. (See Stern s #4) GRANTED, at the Court s discretion. (See Stern s #8) GRANTED without prejudice. GRANTED, the incident witnesses other than those ID in 12.1 are excluded. DENIED as to impeachment witnesses or witnesses re: physical limitations & disabilities. DENIED. Brad s motion points out the likelihood that Mr. White will be vulnerable to X-exam. The Court intends to let the trier of fact determine the weight to be given to his testimony. MOOT. 5

11 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE OF AMOUNTS OF PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES 12 DEFENDANT BRAD'S OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS KEN MARTIN FROM OFFERING OPINIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF'S "PRODUCTS LIABILITY" CAUSE OF ACTION DENIED. DENIED. 6