8/10/2019 Motion in Limine to exclude evidence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/motion-in-limine-to-exclude-evidence 1/3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Nancy Deloach, In Pro Per 

Craig Deloach, In Pro Per 

1815 Virginiatown Rd.Lincoln, Ca 95648

916! 645"#$68

%a&' 916! 645"#$68

()P*RI+R C+)R +% -* (* +% CLI%+RNI%+R -* C+)N/ +% PLC*R 

" Li0ited Ciil Ca2e "

LIND 3*N (/V* )I((+N !!

PLINI%% !!

2. !

!!

!

 NNC/ NN (/V* D*L+C- !CRI 7RN*R D*L+C- !

!

D*%*NDN( ! !

Deendant2, Craig and Nancy DeLoach D*L+C-!, here:y re;<e2t the Co<rt or an +rder

e&cl<ding the introd<ction o eidence not =rod<ced in di2coery on the gro<nd2 that introd<ction o

thi2 eidence wo<ld :e <nair, =re><dicial, and wo<ld con2tit<te 2<r=ri2e to the =artie2.

%C('

+n ?ay @, #A14, D*L+C- 2ered on Plainti a Re;<e2t or Prod<ction o Doc<0ent2.

2igniicant ol<0e o =age2 were 2<:0itted in re2=on2e :y Plainti. he 0a>ority o the2e were

<2ele22 Bill and Plainti ailed to =rod<ce 0any o the re;<e2ted =ertinent doc<0ent2. Plainti

1

?+I+N IN LI?IN* 1 + *ECL)D* -* INR+D)CI+N

 +% *VID*NC* N+ PR+D)C*D IN DI(C+V*R/

Ca2e No' ?CVAA59951

?+I+N IN LI?IN* N+. 1

?+I+N IN LI?IN* + *ECL)D* -*

INR+D)CI+N +% *VID*NC* N+

PR+D)C*D IN DI(C+V*R/F ?*?+RND)?+% %C( ND P+IN( ND )-+RII*( IN

()PP+R -*R*+%

Co0=laint %iled' 1#G#G1@

rial date' 8G#5G14

8/10/2019 Motion in Limine to exclude evidence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/motion-in-limine-to-exclude-evidence 2/3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

declared that the2e were all the doc<0ent2 in her =o22e22ion and control. -oweer, d<ring the recent

de=o2ition e&a0ination o the DeLoachH2 on <g<2t 19, #A14, Plainti =re2ented or <2e a2 reerence

in relation to her ;<e2tioning, 2eeral doc<0ent2 that had :een re;<e2ted :<t were :eing withheld.

+n 3<ne #5, #A14, D*L+C- 2ered re;<e2t2 or ad0i22ion and or0 interrogatorie2 on Plainti.

he Plainti2 re2=on2e2 were <nti0ely, inco0=lete, ea2ie, contradictory, and do not indicate a

2howing o ood %aith :y Plainti.

+n 3<ly #@, #A14, DeLoach 2ered Plainti, in accordance with CCP (ection 96, 3<dicial Co<ncil

or0 DI(C"A15 re;<e2ting PlaintiH2 2tate0ent o witne22e2 and eidence that 2he intend2 to oer at

trial to 2<==ort her allegation2 in thi2 action. Plainti ha2 re<2ed to =roide thi2 inor0ation 2tating

a2 gro<nd2 that DeLoachH2 own 2tate0ent, ti0ely 2<:0itted in good aith to Plainti, contain2 ag<e

reerence2 and <ntil a rei2ed 2tate0ent wa2 receied ro0 DeLoach, there wo<ld :e no 2<:0i22ion

 :y Plainti. In a 2e=arate, later co00<nication, =re2ented #8 day2 ater 2erice o the notice and 6

day2 :eore the 2ched<led trial date, Plainti incorrectly clai02 that DeLoachH2 re;<e2t ailed to :e

2ered within the ti0e =eriod allowed :y CCP 96 and there will :e no 2tate0ent in re2=on2e :y

Plainti. the e&change o co00<nication i2 attached a2 *&hi:it !

*VID*NC* N+ PR+D)C*D D)RIN DI(C+V*R/ (-+)LD * *ECL)D*D'

In enacting the di2coery 2tat<te2, the legi2lat<re Bintended to tae the Jga0eH ele0ent o<t o trial

 =re=aration. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court 1961! 56 Cal.#d @55, @$6.  2 e&=lained in

reyho<nd, the di2coery 2y2te0 ha2 0any =<r=o2e2, incl<ding to Bgie great a22i2tance to the

 =artie2 in a2certaining the tr<th and in checing and =reenting =er><ryF to =roide an eectie

0ean2 o deter0ining the 0erit2 o a clai0 or deen2eF Bto 0ae aaila:le, in a 2ingle, conenient and

ine&=en2ie way, act2 which otherwi2e wo<ld not :e =roided e&ce=t with great diic<ltyF Bto

e&=edite litigationF Bto 2aeg<ard again2t 2<r=ri2eF Bto =reent delayF Bto 2i0=liy and narrow the

i22<e2F Bto e&=edite and acilitate :oth =re=aration and trial.  Davies v. Superior Court 1984! @6

Cal.@d #91, #99.

#

?+I+N IN LI?IN* 1 + *ECL)D* -* INR+D)CI+N

 +% *VID*NC* N+ PR+D)C*D IN DI(C+V*R/

8/10/2019 Motion in Limine to exclude evidence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/motion-in-limine-to-exclude-evidence 3/3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bhe di2coery 2tat<te2 are intended to 2aeg<ard again2t 2<r=ri2e. City of Fresno v. Harrison 1984!

154 Cal.ll.@d #96, @A1. B?<t<al e&change o data =roide2 2o0e =rotection again2t atte0=ted one"

way di2clo2<re. Id.  he =<r=o2e o the Di2coery ct i2 to =reent Btrial :y a0:<2h.

o eect<ate the =<r=o2e o di2coery, the Co<rt 2ho<ld e&cl<de all re;<e2ted eidence that wa2 not

 =reio<2ly =rod<ced or di2clo2ed in the co<r2e o di2coery. See Estate of Luke , 194 Cal. ==. @d

1AA6, 1A#1 198$! re0oing i22<e2 in ca2e that were not identiied in re2=on2e to contention

interrogatorie2 :eca<2e :y an2wering interrogatorie2 Bin the negatie, no i22<eK re0ained to :e

deter0ined at the hearing!F Campain v. Safeway Stores, Inc., #9 Cal. ==. @d @6# 19$#! reer2ing

trial co<rtH2 r<ling ad0itting =laintiH2 te2ti0ony that contradicted her interrogatory re2=on2e2!.

C+NCL)(I+N'

It wo<ld :e <nair or Plainti to rely <=on eidence at trial that they re<2ed to =rod<ce or identiy in

di2coery. D*L+C- will :e =re><diced in their a:ility to =re=are =ro=erly or trial witho<t thi2

li0itation to e&cl<de the ad0i22ion o eidence i0=ro=erly withheld d<ring the co<r2e o di2coery.

ny 2<ch eidence 2ho<ld :e e&cl<ded.

Re2=ect<lly (<:0itted,

 

Dated' <g<2t #A, #A14   Nancy DeLoach In Pro Per 

  

Craig DeLoach In Pro Per 

@

?+I+N IN LI?IN* 1 + *ECL)D* -* INR+D)CI+N

 +% *VID*NC* N+ PR+D)C*D IN DI(C+V*R/