Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03053/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03053-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346bc Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

B. VEASLEY, a minor, by and

through her Guardian ad Litem,

RODNEY VEASLEY; and MILDRED

VEASLEY,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 12-cv-3053-WGH-WVG

ORDER

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are Motions in Limine #1-5 filed by Plaintiffs. 

(ECF Nos. 50-54).

Background

On December 21, 2012, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing the Complaint

against Defendant.1

 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs sued Defendant for injuries arising from

negligent medical care provided at the naval hospital within the Marine Corps Base,

Camp Pendleton, California during the pregnancy of Mildred Veasley and the birth of

B. Veasley. Id. at 6–8. Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he negligence and carelessness of

defendants, in both the placement of an . . . [intrauterine device] and in providing

1

The Complaint included “Does 1 through 20.” (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem included “Does 1 though 10.” (ECF No. 2). 

No Does have been identified; accordingly the Court refers to the United States of

America as the sole defendant. 

- 1 - 12-cv-3053-WGH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-03053-WQH-WVG Document 72 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 8
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

prenatal care, consisted of the failure to use, and to insist upon the use of, that degree

of skill and care ordinarily used by health care professionals engaged in the practice of

their profession in the same or similar locality and under the same or similar

circumstances.” Id. at 6. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result, B. Veasley was “born

prematurely” and was “permanently hurt and injured in her health and physical ability.” 

Id. Plaintiffs allege that B. Veasley’s premature birth “will cause plaintiff mental,

physical, and nervous pain . . . .” Id. Plaintiffs allege that Mildred Veasley was

harmed, “sustaining injuries to her body[,] and shock and injury to her nervous system

and person . . . . ” Id. Plaintiffs allege that Mildred Veasley suffered “severe emotional

and psychological distress . . . .” Id. at 8. Plaintiffs ask for “general and special

damages . . . in an amount to be proven at trial,” “future medical and life care

expenses,” “pre-judgment interest,” legal costs, and “such other and further relief as the

court may deem just and proper.” Id. 

On August 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed five motions in limine. (ECF Nos. 50-54). 

On September 4, 2015, Defendant filed oppositions to Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine. 

(ECF No. 56-60). On September 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed replies in support of their

Motions in Limine. (ECF Nos. 61-64). On September 25, 2015, the Court heard oral

argument on the motions in limine. (ECF No. 66). 

Discussion

“A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or

evidence in a particular area.” United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir.

2009) (citation omitted). “[A] motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual

disputes or weigh evidence.” C & E Servs., Inc. v. Ashland Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 316,

323 (D.D.C. 2008). “To exclude evidence on a motion in limine the evidence must be

inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Goodman v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept.,

963 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1047 (D. Nev. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

“[I]n limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always change

- 2 - 12-cv-3053-WGH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-03053-WQH-WVG Document 72 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 8
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

his mind during the course of a trial.” Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3

(2000).

A. Motion in Limine #1 (ECF No. 50)

Plaintiffs move to preclude Defendant “from introducing evidence or arguing that

any portion of Plaintiffs’ future damages should be reduced by payments that might be

made in the future by any collateral source.” (ECF No. 50 at 10). Plaintiffs allege that

despite the Collateral Source Rule, which generally prohibits evidence of any such collateral source payments, the defense will claim . . . that the

amount of such collateral source benefits should be deducted from

Plaintiff’s economic damages, on the theory that the collateral source rule has been abrogated in medical negligence cases by California Civil Code section 3333.1. Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that section 3333.1

applies to the present case. However, . . . [Plaintiffs contend] that section does not apply to future benefits from any collateral source. Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). 

Defendant contends that section 3333.1 applies to future collateral source benefits

to be received by Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 56 at 7). Defendant contends that “Section

3333.1(a) is a rule of evidence that permits collateral source benefits to be admitted so

that a factfinder may, but need not, use such evidence to reduce an awarded judgment.” 

Id. at 11. 

California Civil Code section 3333.1 creates a limited exception to the collateral

source rule and provides, in pertinent part, 

(a) In the event the defendant so elects, in an action for personal injury against a health care provider based upon professional negligence, he may introduce evidence of any amount payable as a benefit to the plaintiff as a result of the personal injury pursuant to the United States Social Security Act, any state or federal income disability or worker's compensation act, any health, sickness or income-disability insurance, accident insurance that

provides health benefits or income-disability coverage, and any contract or agreement of any group, organization, partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse the cost of medical, hospital, dental, or other health care services. Where the defendant elects to introduce such

evidence, the plaintiff may introduce evidence of any amount which the

plaintiff has paid or contributed to secure his right to any insurance benefits concerning which the defendant has introduced evidence.

Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.1.

Courts have noted that “section 3333.1(a) does not preclude plaintiffs’ recovery of

- 3 - 12-cv-3053-WGH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-03053-WQH-WVG Document 72 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 8
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

future medical expenses. It allows this Court, as trier of fact, to determine how to apply

future . . . [evidence of ] benefits to damage calculation.” Silong v. United States, No.

CV F 06-0474 LJO DLB, 2007 WL 2580543, at *17 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2007). See also

S.H. ex rel. Holt v. United States, No. 2:11-CV-01963-MCE, 2014 WL 5501005, at *3

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014) (making the same statement). 

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #1 to preclude Defendant “from introducing

evidence or arguing that any portion of Plaintiffs’ future damages should be reduced by

payments that might be made in the future by any collateral source” is denied without

prejudice to object to specific evidence presented at trial. 

B. Motion in Limine #2 (ECF No. 51)

Plaintiffs move to preclude evidence or argument that Plaintiffs’ damages for

future medical expenses should be reduced to the amounts that might be paid by private

insurance. (ECF No. 51). Defendant states that it “does not plan to offer any evidence

of reduced rates of future medical expenses.”2

 (ECF No. 60 at 2). Accordingly,

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2 is granted as unopposed.

C. Motion in Limine #3 (ECF No. 52)

Plaintiffs move to preclude evidence or argument regarding comparative fault

absent evidence of causation. (ECF No. 52) Plaintiffs contend that “even if there were

evidence that Mildred Veasley and/or Rodney Veasley were negligent, such evidence

would be irrelevant absent evidence that such negligence was a cause of harm to one

of the Plaintiffs.” Id. at 5. Plaintiffs contend that “[t]here has been no expert testimony

on this issue, and, specifically, no expert or other testimony that suggests that Mrs.

Veasley would have been treated any differently had she come to the [Labor and

Delivery Unit] on January 29 than she was when she came to the [Labor and Delivery

Unit] on January 28.” Id. 

2 At the motion in limine hearing, Defense counsel stated that he did not

oppose this motion in limine. 

- 4 - 12-cv-3053-WGH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-03053-WQH-WVG Document 72 Filed 10/15/15 Page 4 of 8
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

Defendant contends that its obstetrical expert, Dr. Kingston, “expressed her

opinion that one of the indications for hospital admission for Mildred Veasley would

have been a finding of cervical changes on physical examination, which would have

indicated a sufficient risk of imminent preterm birth to justify the admission.” (ECF

No. 57 at 6). Defendant contends that “[t]he Court should conclude that [the expert’s

opinion] is sufficient to support a finding of causation . . . .” Id. In the alternative,

Defendant requests that the Court “allow Defendant to offer an additional opinion from

its obstetrical expert, Dr. Kingston . . . .” Id. at 7. 

In reply, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s request that “its obstetrical expert,

[Dr.] Kingston, be permitted to add new opinions not previously expressed in her

original report, rebuttal report, or deposition” should be denied. (ECF No. 63 at 2). 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #3 to preclude evidence or argument regarding

comparative fault absent evidence of causation is denied without prejudice to object 

to specific questions or testimony presented at trial. Defendant may introduce expert

evidence at trial previously disclosed in Dr. Kingston’s original report, rebuttal report,

or deposition. 

D. Motion in Limine #4 (ECF No. 53)

Plaintiffs move to preclude Defendant “from offering expert medical testimony

from the Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton physicians involved in Plaintiffs’ care . . . .”

(ECF No. 53 at 2). Plaintiffs assert that Defendant did not properly designate such

physicians as experts as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and that such expert opinion

testimony “would be cumulative.” Id. Defendant contends that it “does not intend to

elicit any expert testimony from the listed treating physicians regarding whether the

standard of care was met, whether causation exists, or any other issues.” (ECF No. 59

at 2). 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #4 is denied without prejudice to object to specific

questions or testimony at trial.

- 5 - 12-cv-3053-WGH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-03053-WQH-WVG Document 72 Filed 10/15/15 Page 5 of 8
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

E. Motion in Limine #5 (ECF No. 54)

Plaintiffs move to preclude Defendant from calling “Lt. Michael Orr and Genard

Jose as witnesses at trial because those witnesses were first identified by the

[Defendant] in a ‘Supplemental Disclosure’ served more than a year after the discovery

cutoff date, [and] more than five months after the close of expert witness discovery . .

. .” (ECF No. 54 at 2). Plaintiffs also move to preclude Defendant “from introducing

into evidence at trial the documents described as ‘One Step Package Insert Back’ and

‘One Step Package Insert Front’ . . . .” Id. Plaintiffs assert that the late production of

those documents “was particularly problematic, because the detection limit of the

pregnancy test used on Mildred Veasley is an issue in this case.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs

assert that allowing Defendant “to call these witnesses or to introduce these documents”

would be prejudicial. Id. at 4. 

Defendant “request the Court deny Plaintiffs’ request to preclude admission of

the document, or the witness to authenticate it, since the late disclosure was inadvertent,

and Plaintiffs were not prejudiced because the information that the document existed

was communicated shortly after its relevancy became apparent.” (ECF No. 58 at 2). 

Defendant asserts that approximately three months before the close of discovery

Plaintiffs were given the necessary information about the detection limit of the

pregnancy test in Defendant’s obstetrical expert report. Id. at 2. Defendant asserts that

Plaintiff also received a copy of the package insert when they deposed Defendant’s

obstetrical expert. Id. at 4. 

 In reply, Plaintiffs assert that they were prejudiced by the failure to disclose the

documents because they only learned of the specific pregnancy test used on Mildred

Veasley “after Plaintiffs’ obstetrical expert’s initial and rebuttal reports were completed,

and after his deposition was completed.” (ECF No. 61 at 4). Plaintiffs assert that they

were prejudiced by Defendant’s failure to timely identify the two witnesses because

they were deprived of the opportunity to “take their deposition” and “to pursue any

- 6 - 12-cv-3053-WGH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-03053-WQH-WVG Document 72 Filed 10/15/15 Page 6 of 8
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

discovery the need for which might have been exposed by their depositions.” Id. at 4. 

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant had no good cause for the late disclosure. At the

motion in limine hearing, Plaintiffs stated that they are not trying to exclude

Defendant’s expert’s opinion; rather, Plaintiffs are trying to exclude the package inserts

themselves. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) states 

If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or

witness to supply evidence . . . at a trial, unless the failure was

substantially justified or harmless. In addition to or instead of that

sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard

may: (A) order payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,

caused by the failure;

(B) may inform the jury of the party’s failure; and 

(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 

Defendant has not demonstrated that its failure to timely produce the documents

described as “One Step Package Insert Back” and “One Step Package Insert Front” or

identify the witnesses, Lt. Michael Orr and Genard Jose, was “substantially justified or

harmless.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #5 to preclude

the testimony of Lt. Michael Orr and Genard Jose and to preclude Defendant “from

introducing into evidence at trial the documents described as ‘One Step Package Insert

Back’ and ‘One Step Package Insert Front’” is granted. 

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #1 (ECF No. 50) is denied without prejudice to

object to specific evidence as it is presented at trial. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2

(ECF No. 51) is granted as unopposed. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #3 (ECF No. 52)

is denied without prejudice to object to specific questions or testimony as it is presented

at trial. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #4 (ECF No. 53) is denied without prejudice to

object to specific questions or testimony as it is presented at trial. Plaintiffs’ Motion in

- 7 - 12-cv-3053-WGH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-03053-WQH-WVG Document 72 Filed 10/15/15 Page 7 of 8
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

Limine #5 (ECF No. 54) to preclude the testimony of Lt. Michael Orr and Genard Jose

is and to preclude Defendant “from introducing into evidence at trial the documents

described as ‘One Step Package Insert Back’ and ‘One Step Package Insert Front’” is

granted. 

DATED: October 15, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 8 - 12-cv-3053-WGH-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-03053-WQH-WVG Document 72 Filed 10/15/15 Page 8 of 8