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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Defendant Matthew Black and City of XYZ’s’s Motion in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Robert Gold, P.E., from Testifying as Plaintiff’s Expert.
Defendants Matthew Black and City of XYZ move the court in limine, before trial and selection of the jury, for an order precluding plaintiffs expert, Robert Gold, P.E., from rendering any expert opinions at the time of trial. Mr. Gold’s expert deposition was taken on February 2, 2010. In light of Mr. Gold’s testimony at deposition, it is apparent that Mr. Gold’s expert opinion is not based upon reliable facts or data, but is instead based upon assumptions and speculation. As such, the Defendant now seeks an Order from this Court precluding Mr. Gold from improperly testifying at trial.
This motion is made pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 801, 802 and 352 as well as interpretive case law including Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390. An expert’s opinion based on assumptions of fact without evidentiary support, or on speculative or conjectural factors, has no evidentiary value and may be excluded from evidence.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
This motion is based upon this notice, the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the attached exhibits and declaration, all pleadings and records filed in this action and upon such further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this motion. (See Part 2 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.