Ellena v. Standard Insurance Company et al

Filing 163

ORDER Re Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 01/10/2014. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9

CASSAUNDRA ELLENA,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY,
13
Defendants.
14
15

) Case No. 12-5401 SC
)
) ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

17
18
19

1.

Motion to exclude all references to Defendant's pre-tax
income.

20
21
22

GRANTED.

23
24
25

2.

Motion to exclude all references to the financial
condition of Defendant's parent company.

26
27
28

GRANTED.

1

3.

Motion to bifurcate issues of liability and damages.

2
3

DENIED.

4
5

4.

Motion to exclude any evidence not disclosed or
produced in discovery.

6
7
8

DENIED without prejudice as overbroad.

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

5.

Motion to limit expert witness testimony and evidence

11

to opinions set forth in their Rule 26 reports and

12

depositions.

13
14

DENIED without prejudice as overbroad.

15
16

6.

Motion to exclude evidence of dismissed claims.

17
18

GRANTED.

19
20

7.

Motion to exclude evidence regarding Department of

21

Insurance accusations, market conduct examinations, or

22

settlements involving other insurers.

23
24

GRANTED.

25
26
27

8.

Motion to exclude any experts at trial not disclosed by
Plaintiff.

28

2

1

GRANTED.

2
3

9.

Motion to exclude any evidence and argument that the

4

group policy's definition of disability violates

5

California law.

6
7

GRANTED.

However, the Court intends to instruct on a

8

definition of disability that is consistent with Moore and

9

Erreca.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

10. Motion to exclude evidence of other lawsuits,
complaints, demands, or judgments.

12
13
14

GRANTED.

15
16

11.

Daubert motion to exclude to exclude expert

17

testimony and evidence of opinions of Dr. Maria

18

Dall'Era.

19
20

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Dr. Dall'Era may offer

21

medical opinions, but non-medical opinions, such as those

22

related to claims handling and vocational analysis, are

23

inadmissible.

24
25
26

12.

Daubert motion to exclude to exclude expert
testimony and evidence of opinions of Steven Prater.

27
28

3

1

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Prater may offer

2

testimony that embraces the issue of bad faith, but he may not

3

give opinions as to his legal conclusion on the issue.

4

may also opine on insurance industry standards and Defendant's

5

compliance with those standards.

Prater

6
7

13.

Motion to exclude any opinions of Plaintiff's

8

treating physicians that were not formulated during

9

the course of treatment of Plaintiff.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

GRANTED.

12
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

13
14
15

1.

Motion to exclude evidence and argument relating to any of

16

the reports of doctors who performed work in connection

17

with Plaintiff's claim for social security disability

18

benefits.

19
20

GRANTED.

21
22

2.

Motion to exclude evidence and argument related to either

23

of the two denials of Plaintiff's claim for social security

24

benefits that occurred before its ultimate approval.

25
26

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

27

evidence of the denials if Plaintiff opens the door by introducing

28

4

Defendant may introduce

1

evidence that her application for social security benefits was

2

ultimately granted.

3
4

3.

Motion to exclude evidence of disability claims approved by
Defendant.

5
6
7

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

8

evidence of approved disability claims if Plaintiff opens the door

9

by introducing evidence of denied claims, so long as that evidence

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Defendant may introduce

was produced during discovery.

11
12

4.

Motion to exclude evidence or argument relating to certain

13

matters relative to Steven Prater, Plaintiff's claims

14

expert.

15
16

GRANTED.

The Court notes that expert reports will not be admitted

17

into evidence, though expert witnesses may testify to matters

18

contained in those reports.

19

witness may offer legal conclusions to the jury.

Neither Prater, nor any other expert

20
21

5.

Motion to bar Defendant from (1) offering into evidence any

22

facts or information that it did not possess at the time it

23

denied Plaintiff's claim and (2) utilizing any facts or

24

information it did not know at that time to support its

25

contention that is claims decision was reasonable.

26
27

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

28

to the extent Defendant intends to introduce the evidence in

5

Plaintiff's motion is DENIED

1

question in connection with Plaintiff's claim for breach of

2

contract or to impeach Plaintiff's witnesses.

3

bad faith claim, Plaintiff may introduce evidence not considered by

4

Defendant prior to its denial, but only if Defendant could have

5

discovered that evidence through a reasonable investigation.

In support of her

6
7

6.

Motion to exclude evidence that Plaintiff's prior position
as redevelopment manager was or will be eliminated.

8
9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

DENIED.

11
12

7.

Motion to exclude evidence and argument that Plaintiff's
disability could have been accommodated.

13
14
15

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

To establish disability under

16

the own occupation standard, Plaintiff must show that she was

17

unable to perform with reasonable continuity the substantial and

18

material duties necessary to pursue her usual occupation in the

19

usual or customary way.

20

Plaintiff's substantial and material duties are irrelevant and

21

therefore inadmissible.

22

hours per week was a substantial and material duty of Plaintiff's

23

own occupation is an issue of fact for the jury to decide.

Accommodations that would alter

Whether or not working a certain number of

24
25

8.

Motion to exclude Defendant from arguing that Plaintiff has

26

failed to show that any other insureds have been injured by

27

Defendant's claims practices.

28

6

1

DENIED.

2
3

9.

Motion to exclude evidence or argument related to market

4

conduct examination findings by the California Department

5

of Insurance with respect to Civil Service Employees

6

Insurance Company.

7
8

DENIED.

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

January 10, 2014

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

7