Turek et al v. Stanford University Medical Center et al

Filing 132

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER AND ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/8/2013. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

ANTHONY and LESLIE TUREK, as
successors in interest to the Estate of Michael
Turek, deceased, and in their individual
capacities,

15
16
17

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER AND
ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. C 12-00444 WHA

v.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
CENTER, JUSTIN BIRNBAUM, M.D.
MICHAEL GADBOW, M.D., KATHERINE
IESEN, M.D., JOY RUSMINTRATIP, M.D.,
and CLAIRE TURCHI, M.D.,
Defendants.

18

/

19
20
21
22

FOR GOOD CAUSE and after a final pretrial conference, the following constitutes the
final pretrial order and rulings on motions in limine:
1.

This case shall go to a JURY TRIAL on MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2013, at 7:30

23

AM, and shall continue until completed on the schedule discussed at the conference. The issues

24

to be tried shall be those set forth in the joint proposed pretrial order except to the extent

25

modified by order in limine. This final pretrial order supersedes all the complaint, answer and

26

any counterclaims, cross-claims or third-party complaints, i.e., only the issues expressly

27

identified for trial remain in the case.

28

2.

Except for good cause, and subject to exclusion for failure to disclose under Rule

26(a), each party is limited to the witnesses and exhibits disclosed in the joint proposed final

1

pretrial order less any excluded or limited by an order in limine. Materials or witnesses used

2

solely for true impeachment need not be disclosed and may be used, subject to the rules of

3

evidence.

4

3.

5

The stipulations of facts set forth in the joint proposed final pretrial order are

approved and binding on all parties.

6

4.

A jury of EIGHT PERSONS shall be used.

7

5.

Each side shall have EIGHT HOURS to examine witnesses (counting direct

Opening statements and closing arguments shall not count against the limit. If, despite being

10

efficient, non-duplicative, and non-argumentative in the use of the allotted time, one side runs

11
For the Northern District of California

examination, cross-examination, re-direct examination, re-cross examination, etc.).

9

United States District Court

8

out of time and it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold that side to the limit, then more time

12

will be allotted.

13

6.

The parties shall follow the Court's current Guidelines for Trial and

14

Final Pretrial Conference, separately provided and available on the Internet at

15

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, which guidelines are incorporated as part of this order.

16

7.

Plaintiffs filed no motions in limine.

17

8.

Defendants filed the following timely motions in limine and the rulings were as

18
19

follows (after hearing):
•

Defendants’ motion in limine number 1 is GRANTED TO THIS EXTENT. Pursuant

20

to California Civil Code Section 3333.2, non-economic damages will be limited

21

to $250,000. Neither party may refer to this limitation on non-economic

22

damages or the effect of Section 3333.2 without prior court approval. Then, the

23

Court may possibly instruct the jury that it cannot award more than $250,000 for

24

non-economic damages, depending on the way the case is presented to the jury.

25

•

Pursuant to FRE 411, defendants’ motion in limine number 2 to exclude

26

evidence of liability insurance for defendants or its physicians, nurses, and/or

27

employees is GRANTED.

28
2

1

•

In light of plaintiffs’ non-opposition, defendants’ motion in limine number 3 to

2

prohibit Dr. Larry Wampler from expressing expert opinions on the decedent’s

3

care and treatment at Stanford Hospital & Clinics is GRANTED.

4

•

Defendants’ motion in limine number 4 to preclude the coroner’s report or any

5

mention or description of the decedent’s death is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

6

IN PART.

7

death will be omitted, unless the Court rules otherwise based on an inquiry into

8

plaintiffs’ knowledge of such details. The parties, however, may present

9

testimony on other details concerning the decedent’s death.
•

Defendants’ motion in limine number 5 to prohibit any testimony or evidence of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Details concerning the gruesome nature of the decedent’s injuries and

plaintiffs’ emotional and mental distress or grief and sorrow is GRANTED IN

12

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

13

their son as any ordinary person would in their position. Plaintiffs, however,

14

may not testify as to how much grief they have suffered due to the decedent’s

15

death, as “California cases have uniformly held that damages for mental and

16

emotional distress, including grief and sorrow, are not recoverable in a wrongful

17

death action.” Krouse v. Graham, 19 Cal. 3d 59, 72 (1977). Furthermore, Dr.

18

Larry Wampler will not testify as to plaintiffs’ grief for the decedent.

19

•

In light of plaintiffs’ non-opposition, defendants’ motion in limine number 6 to
exclude the testimony of Randal Gardner is GRANTED.

20
21

While testifying, plaintiffs may express grief for

•

Defendants’ motion in limine number 7 to prohibit any mention of or testimony

22

regarding speculative special damages is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The

23

Court will later decide the extent to which any mention or testimony of special

24

damages may be submitted to the jury, based on the record of the case as actually

25

tried up to that point.

26

*

*

27
28
3

*

1

Two caveats to the tentative rulings above: Any denial above does not mean that the

2

evidence at issue in the motion is admitted — it must still be moved into evidence, subject to

3

other possible objections, at trial. And, a grant of a motion in limine does not exclude the item

4

at issue under any and all circumstances; the beneficiary of an order in limine may open the

5

door to the disputed evidence, for example.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: October 8, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4