DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV080394·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing 10 days agoThe Court is tentatively inclined to deny the motion on the condition that all deficiencies in Plaintiff’s expert designation are corrected.

YOUNG vs ABODE SERVICES, et al.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE RETAINED EXPERTS

Hearing date
Aug 14, 2026
Department
24
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion in Limine rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffYOUNG
DefendantABODE SERVICES

Ruling

24CV080394: YOUNG vs ABODE SERVICES, et al. 08/14/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 08/12/2026 Rebekah Evenson

Counsel of record must appear IN PERSON, not by zoom, at the pretrial conference. Parties must also be present.

COURT REPORTER

The Court will not provide a court reporter. Counsel must either secure the attendance of a court reporter at the pretrial conference or be prepared to stay in the courthouse after the pretrial conference to draft a settled statement.

TRIAL DOCUMENTS

The parties failed to submit JOINT trial documents, as ordered. Instead, the parties submitted separate Exhibit Lists, Witness lists, Statements of the Case, Jury Instructions, and Verdict form.

The parties must meet and confer and bring to the Pretrial Conference JOINT trial documents.

MOTION IN LIMINE

The parties shall appear to address DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE RETAINED EXPERTS.

The Court is tentatively inclined to deny the motion on the condition that all deficiencies in Plaintiff’s expert designation are corrected, and Plaintiff ameliorates the prejudice arising from its deficient disclosures, as follows:

1) Plaintiff shall produce complete expert files (without redactions) by Monday, August 17 at 12PM.

2) Plaintiff shall produce Anthony Jackson for deposition on August 20, 2026, or another date prior to trial that is mutually agreeable to the parties. The deposition will proceed entirely at Plaintiff’s expense, including expert fees and court reporter fees.

The parties are reminded that the trial setting order and Local Rule 3.30 require parties to deliver courtesy copies of filed documents.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share