CLEMONS vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

24CV101887: CLEMONS vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 07/17/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 07/14/2026 Rebekah Evenson

Both parties and counsel of record must appear IN PERSON for pretrial conference.

The parties should continue to check back for updated tentative rulings.

The Court tentatively rules as follows on the motions on limine.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude evidence of unrelated medical conditions is GRANTED. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s other medical conditions and opioid use would be relevant to any claim for future lost earnings; however, Plaintiff makes no claim for future lost earnings.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff may have been using hydrocodone at the time of the accident, that hydrocodone use may have been a cause of the accident, and that Plaintiff may have made up the accident in order to obtain a new opioid prescription. Defendant identifies no admissible evidence to support any of these assumptions. Unless and until Defendant has first demonstrated reliable evidence exists to support the inferences raised in its opposition to this Motion in Limine, counsel is barred from presenting such arguments to the jury pursuant to Evidence Code 352.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Evidence that Plaintiff was an “unsafe” employee is GRANTED. Plaintiff alleges he was injured on December 4. Defendant denies any injury occurred. Defendant contends that it terminated Plaintiff’s employment on December 5, and only after the termination notice did Plaintiff report the December 4 injury, which Defendant contends was made up. Defendant argues that it should be able to introduce evidence that it had discharged Plaintiff on December 5, 2023, to explain the circumstances of Plaintiff’s termination, and the timing of the reported injury.

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the reason for the termination is relevant. Defendant can introduce evidence that it discharged Plaintiff on December 5 and argue that the jury should draw inferences from the timing of the report of the injury without specifying to the jury the reason Defendant discharged Plaintiff. Evidence that Plaintiff was an unsafe employee, and evidence of Plaintiff’s prior disciplinary record, is excluded pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101(a).

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude Dr. Hudson's testimony regarding causation is DENIED. Defendant contends that Dr. Hudson’s causation opinion lacks foundation because Dr. Hudson does not have first-hand knowledge of the accident and is instead relying solely on Plaintiff’s explanation of what occurred. This is not a basis to exclude the testimony; Defendant can adequately explore this matter in its cross examination of Dr. Hudson.