SCHMIDT, et al. vs SOUTH PLACER HEATING AND AIR, INC., et al.

24CV007017: SCHMIDT, et al. vs SOUTH PLACER HEATING AND AIR, INC., et al. 04/28/2026 Jury Trial Pretrial Conference in Department 10C

Tentative Ruling

Tentative Rulings on Parties’ Motions In Limine

Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine

No. 1

GRANTED [Contingency fee/attorney advertising disallowed], insofar as Defendants do not specifically oppose. As to clarification, general questions regarding thoughts/feelings permissible to the extent they go to potential juror bias or bear on jurors’ ability to be fair and impartial.

No. 2

GRANTED [“Deep pocket” references disallowed], insofar as Defendants do not oppose.

No. 3

GRANTED [Notorious case references disallowed], insofar as Defendants do not oppose.

No. 4

GRANTED [References on use of potential award disallowed], insofar as Defendants do not oppose.

No. 5

GRANTED [Plaintiffs’ compromise offers disallowed], insofar as Defendants do not oppose.

No.6

GRANTED [References to taxation disallowed], insofar as Defendants agree “there will be no references to taxes, tax returns, or the concept of taxation.” (Defs’ Resp. and Req. for Clarification to Pls’ Motion in Limine No. 6, Etc., at 2:8-10.) Counsel are ordered to further meet and confer as to scope of Witness Barnes’ opinion testimony, as an Evidence Code section 402 hearing appears unnecessary.

No. 7

DENIED [Sub rosa surveillance], insofar as Defendants have disclosed sub rosa evidence to Plaintiffs and any related “documents, billings, logs, memos, or other writings” are irrelevant and/or the probative value is substantially outweighed by confusion of issues, undue

24CV007017: SCHMIDT, et al. vs SOUTH PLACER HEATING AND AIR, INC., et al. 04/28/2026 Jury Trial Pretrial Conference in Department 10C

consumption of time. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 352.)

No. 8

GRANTED [References to stock market disallowed], to the extent that probative value outweighed by confusion of issues (Evid. Code, § 352) and Defendants will enjoy ample opportunity to cross-examine Plaintiffs’ damages expert(s).

No. 9

GRANTED [References to Medicare rates/eligibility disallowed], insofar as Defendants do not oppose.

No. 10

DENIED [Treatment outside of network permissible], insofar as Defendants “do not intend to introduce the source of payments” for Plaintiff Z. Schmidt’s medical treatment or Plaintiffs’ health insurance coverage. (Defs.’ Opp. Pls.’ Motion in Limine No. 10, Etc., at 2:10-11, 3:6-7.)

No. 11

GRANTED [Reference to previous retention of M. Hembd, M.D. disallowed], insofar as Defendants do not oppose and subject to Evidence Code section 352 (confusion of issues).

No. 12

DENIED [Radiologist opinion testimony], to the extent the witness is properly qualified at trial.

Defendants’ Motions In Limine

No. 1

GRANTED [Sub rosa surveillance in Plaintiffs’ opening disallowed], to the extent that any sub rosa evidence will be permitted solely for use by Defendants for impeachment purposes.

No. 2

DENIED [ESI video (edited) permissible], insofar as Plaintiffs intend to offer a “brief, edited portion of a video depicting the Epidural Steroid Injection (ESI) performed on Plaintiff [Z. Schmidt].” (Pls.’ Opp. To Def.s’ Motion in Limine No. 2, Etc., at 1:21-22.) This evidence appears relevant and non-prejudicial. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007017: SCHMIDT, et al. vs SOUTH PLACER HEATING AND AIR, INC., et al. 04/28/2026 Jury Trial Pretrial Conference in Department 10C

No. 3

DENIED, insofar as Witness C. Caufield is a percipient fact witness (Pls.’ Opp. To Def.s’ Motion in Limine No. 3, Etc., at 3:5-7) and RESERVED as to testimony of Witness Vinay Reddy, M.D., relative to any potential objections based on People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 665. All denials are without prejudice. The parities shall inform the Court via email as to those rulings that will be submitted, will be contested, and/or for which further clarification is sought.