The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
THIS COURT MAY EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL BY WAY OF A MOTION IN LIMINE
The court has the inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude “any kind of evidence” which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial. Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451; Peat. Marwick. Mitchell & Co. v Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288, Evidence Code §350 states that (n)o evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. Relevant evidence is defined by Evidence Code §210 as “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.”
Evidence Code §352 allows the court to exclude evidence where there is a substantial danger that the probative value will be outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. See People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 904. Evidence Code §402 allows the court to hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence outside the presence of hearing of the jury. See Mize v. Atchinson, Topeka v. Santa Fe Ry. Co., (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 436,448.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING EVIDENCE. TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT REGARDING THE DEFENSE MEDICAL EXPERTS AS INDEPENDENT OR TO INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD BE GRANTED
Defendant should not be permitted to claim that his experts are independent or that they conducted an independent medical examination because there is nothing independent about them. There is no basis for calling such experts or their examination of plaintiff independent anywhere in the Code. Quite to the contrary, these experts have been hired and are paid for by the defense, and thus are not independent. The probative value of referencing defense experts are independent is non-existent and would only cause undue confusion and give the improper weight and credibility to the defense witnesses. This claim should be excluded under Evidence Code §352.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court should grant this motion in limine in order to ensure the law is followed, inaccurate nominations or characterizations are not permitted and, therefore, time is not wasted on irrelevant, collateral or prejudicial matters.
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff Robyn Anderson respectfully requests that this motion in limine to exclude argument or reference to the defense medical expert as independent or to use the term independent medical examination be granted.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.