Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03240/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03240-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY KELLY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CBS CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-03240-VC 

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

To assist the parties in focusing their preparation for tomorrow's pretrial conference, the 

Court rules as follows on the parties' motions in limine. Only if a ruling is labeled "tentative" or 

"undecided" does the Court wish to hear argument at the pretrial conference.

 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1, to exclude evidence and argument that 

insulation is "military equipment," is denied. This ruling is final. 

 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2, to exclude evidence offered in support of the 

third prong of the Boyle test, is denied. This ruling is tentative.

 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3, to exclude reference to Barry Kelly as a 

sophisticated user, is granted in part and denied in part. The defendants may 

attempt to establish that Kelly himself was a sophisticated user, assuming they have 

evidence of that. But they may not seek to impute the Navy's knowledge to Kelly. 

They are limited to presenting evidence (if they have it) that Kelly himself received 

information that caused him to know, or should have caused him to know, of the 

dangers of the asbestos to which he was exposed. For example, the defendants may 

not argue that Kelly was a sophisticated user based on his "employment 

relationship with the United States Navy, who certainly knew of the hazard." 

Case 3:11-cv-03240-VC Document 103 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

(Defendants' Opp. at 5.) To use another example, in their opposition to Plaintiffs' 

Motion in Limine No. 4, the defendants state: "Defendants will argue, in part, that 

Mr. Kelly should have known of the dangers of asbestos because he was an officer 

in the U.S. Navy." The defendants may not argue this, because it's not an attempt 

to argue that Kelly actually received information that caused him or should have 

caused him to know of the dangers; it's an impermissible attempt to impute the 

Navy's knowledge to Kelly. Furthermore, to be able to argue that Kelly himself 

was a sophisticated user, the defendants will need to make an offer of proof. The 

aspect of this ruling that precludes the defendants from basing a sophisticated user 

defense on the Navy's knowledge is final. The aspect of this ruling that allows the 

defendants to pursue a sophisticated user defense based on Kelly's own knowledge 

is tentative (and subject to an offer of proof).

 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 4, to prevent the defendants from referring to the 

Navy as a sophisticated user, is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted to 

the extent the defendants wish to present a sophisticated user defense based on the 

Navy's knowledge of the risks of asbestos. It is denied to the extent the defendants 

wish simply to refer to the Navy as a sophisticated user. In fact, it will probably be 

helpful to the jury to receive a specific instruction that, regardless of whether the 

Navy was a sophisticated user, it cannot find Kelly to be a sophisticated user unless 

it concludes he actually received the information. The aspect of this ruling that 

precludes the defendants from presenting a sophisticated user defense based on the 

Navy's knowledge is final. The aspect of this ruling that allows the defendants to 

simply refer to the Navy as a sophisticated user is tentative.

 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 5, to prevent Crane Co. from introducing at trial 

any witnesses, documents, or other information identified in its initial disclosures: 

Undecided. 

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1, to exclude untimely disclosed expert 

witnesses and expert testimony, is denied so long as the plaintiffs make the experts 

Case 3:11-cv-03240-VC Document 103 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

available for deposition. (The defendants' experts will be permitted to testify in 

response to the new disclosures, without being subject to another round of 

depositions.) This ruling is final.

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2, to exclude expert testimony that each

exposure can be a substantial factor, is denied. This ruling is final.

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 3, to exclude expert testimony that peritoneal 

mesothelioma is caused by chrysotile asbestos, is denied. This ruling is tentative.

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 4, to limit the scope of Charles Ay's testimony, 

is granted. This ruling is tentative.

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 5, to exclude the testimony of Nancy Fraser 

Michalski, is denied. This ruling is tentative.

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6, to exclude Dr. Compton's testimony, is denied 

so long as the plaintiffs make Dr. Compton available for deposition before April 

30, 2015. This ruling is tentative.

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 7, to exclude Dr. Ganzhorn's testimony, is 

denied so long as the plaintiffs make him available for deposition before April 30,

2015. This ruling is tentative.

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8, to exclude Aqua-Chem Documents: 

Undecided.

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 9, to exclude argument that Kelly was exposed 

to Asbestos from Cochrane products, is denied. This ruling is final.

 Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 10, to limit the plaintiffs' claim for economic 

damages to the amount of medical bills actually paid, is granted. This ruling is 

tentative. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-03240-VC Document 103 Filed 04/13/15 Page 3 of 3