§Why CasetextPricing

Shiffer'S Motion In Limine No. 7 To Exclude 3 Witnesses, Not Disclosed To Def. In Response To Defendant'S Discovery Requests, From Testifying At Trial

Motion

9 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Morris

    53 Cal.3d 152 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 568 times
    Requiring use of peremptory challenges and dissatisfaction with jury to claim erroneous denial of challenge for cause

  2. Bowen v. Ryan

    163 Cal.App.4th 916 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 50 times
    In Bowen, a civil case, a dentist who had treated as many as 45,000 patients during his 28-year career was accused of choking a patient in order to give him an injection and then shoving him against a wall.

  3. Brokopp v. Ford Motor Co.

    71 Cal.App.3d 841 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 116 times
    In Brokopp the court stated: “ ‘The knowledge, opinions, and report of an expert consulted by an attorney in preparation of his case remain immune from disclosure under the attorney’s work-product privilege as long as the expert does not change his status as a consultant-expert.

  4. Deeter v. Angus

    179 Cal.App.3d 241 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 22 times
    In Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 241, the plaintiff sought to introduce a voice recording at trial despite having failed to produce the recording during discovery.

  5. Webb v. Van Noort

    239 Cal.App.2d 472 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 16 times

    Docket No. 504. January 19, 1966. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert K. Meyers, Judge. Affirmed. Assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council. Action for wrongful death resulting from a nonimpact automobile accident. Judgment for defendants affirmed. Philander Brooks Beadle, John T. Tully and Barreiro Dilling for Plaintiffs and Appellants. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle Best and William B. Boone for Defendants and Respondents. BROWN (R.M.), J. Plaintiffs

  6. Larson v. Larsen

    72 Cal.App. 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)   Cited 9 times
    In Larson the court said: "It has been repeatedly held that it is not competent to prove the commission of independent crimes by the defendant, the evidence of which has no tendency to prove some material fact in connection with the particular crime charged.

  7. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  8. Section 2023.030 - Sanctions for misuse of discovery process

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030   Cited 504 times
    Providing for sanctions "[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method"

  9. Section 954 - Privilege established

    Cal. Evid. Code § 954   Cited 402 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, the client, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer if the privilege is claimed by: (a) The holder of the privilege; (b) A person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder of the privilege; or (c) The person who was the lawyer at the time of the confidential communication, but such person may not