Melody Morales vs. Graham'S Towing, Inc.

Motion in Limine

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.May 31, 2016

1 | CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY, LLP gro ey i aaron R. Stiegler, Esq. (SBN: 236019) County of Orange 2 7 W. Olympic Blvd. ST Beverly Hills, CA 90211 08/31/2017 at 02:43:00 PM 3 | Telephone: 310-273-1230 Clerk of the Superior Court Facsimile: 310-858-1063 By Emma Castle, Deputy Clerk 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MELODY MORALES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER 10 7 | 11 + 20). x _CU-PA- MELODY M ORALES, an Indiv ual, Case No.: 30-2016-00855207-CU-PA-CIC 12 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE oo 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE NOT 13 Plaintiff, PRODUCED AND WITNESSES NOT y IDENTIFIED DURING DISCOVERY V. } [Plaintiff’S Motion in Limine No. 4] 15 | GRAHAM’S TOWING, INC., a Corporation and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive. 16 JUDGE: Randall J. Sherman Defendants. Dept: C24 17 18 19 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 20 COME NOW Plaintiff, MELODY MORALES respectfully requests this court, in limine, 21 || for an order excluding, evidence not produced and witnesses not identified during discovery. 22 STATEMENT OF FACTS 23 Plaintiff and defendants propounded and responded to discovery, interrogatories and 24 requests for production of documents, prior to the date of this trial. Plaintiff has prepared her case 25 for trial based on the responses to discovery by defendant. Plaintiff would be unprepared for trial Gagne 26 and be denied a right to a fair trial if new evidence or new witness testimony were allowed that was nic] @ & not produced or identified during discovery and prior to trial. Zuckerman ~~ 27 LLP I 128 1 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER FOUR Carpenter & Zuckerman LLP wl 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 GROUND FOR EXCLUSION 1. The Court has the authority to exclude evidence not produced during discovery. In the case of Greyhound Corporation v. Superior Court of Merced County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 15 Cal. Rptr. 90, the Court held that the discovery system was intended to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. The Court of Appeal has upheld the right of trial courts to exclude evidence because of a failure to: | 1. REVEAL INFORMATION IN A DEPOSITION. Campain v. Safeway Store, Inc. (1972) 29 Cal. App3d 363, 104 Cal.Rptr 752 2. TO PRODUCE A RESPONSE TO A DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION. Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal Rptr.3d 241, 224 Cal Rptr. 801. 3. ANSWER INTERROGATORIES. Thoren v. Johnston & Washer (1972) 29 Cal. App. 3d 270, 105 Cal.Rptr. 276 4. DISCLOSE CONTENTIONS. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 722, 58 Cal Rptr. 870 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the defense be prohibited from introducing any evidence not disclosed during discovery. Respectfully Submitted: Dated: August 31, 2017 Aaron R. Stiegler, Esq. | Attorney for Plaintiff, MELODY MORALES 2 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER FOUR wl Carpenter & Zuckerman LLP 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] ]ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ] I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California by Carpenter Zuckerman & Rowley, LLP. Tam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 8827 West Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90211. terested parti thi action by ens to the attorney REY below: B g interested parties in this = Ri Tee fare Us € 5 acsimi mail Te 5000. le a5 er, ZL com — ye RONIC L: 1 d all of the ab t: do ument {0 She sent to ¢ recipicqis no Sq Razed ohh phoy mal Hd FoMail”) e respe 0c e-mail addresses indicate above. declare ade penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 31, 2017, at Beverly Hills, Calif mia. 3 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER FOUR