Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice action and its proceedings.)
As expressed by the Court in Kelly v. New West Federal Savings, (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 672, the court held that [i]t is a misuse of a motion in limine to attempt to compel witness or party to conform their trial testimony to preconceived factual scenarios based on testimony given during pretrial discovery. (Id., at 672-673.) The Court of Appeal in Kelly specifically criticized this type of motion as improper and meaningless motion unless and until plaintiffs attempted to call such witnesses. (Id., at 670-671.)
Additionally, the Kelly Court observed in some cases, a motion in limine may not satisfy the requirements of a motion to exclude under Evidence Code §353. For example, it may be difficult to specify exactly what evidence is the subject of the motion until that evidence is offered. Actual testimony sometimes defies pretrial predictions of what a witness will say on the stand. Events in the trial may change the context in which the evidence is offered to an extent that a renewed objection is necessary to satisfy the language and purpose of §353. Until the evidence is actually offered, and the court is aware of its relevance in context, its probative value, and its potential for prejudice, matters related to the state of the evidence at the time an objection is made, the court cannot intelligently rule on admissibility. In these kinds of circumstances, an objection at the time the evidence is offered serves to focus the issue and to protect the record. (Id. 660-661.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Defendants’ Motion as overly broad and devoid of any factual context to make a meaningful order. To the extent that the Court grants Defendants’ motion, it should not extend the ruling to opinions that Plaintiff’s experts did not give because they were not asked, or because they did not have that information available to them at the time of the taking of their deposition due to the sequence in which expert discovery was conducted.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.