Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 11/06/2025 Hearing on Motion in Limine in Department 27

Tentative Ruling

BACKGROUND GENERAL LEGAL STANDARDS A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence in a particular action. In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues in advance of trial. (See Blanks v. Shaw (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 336; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152.) The primary advantage of the motion is to avoid the futile attempt of trying to undo the harm done where jurors have been exposed to damaging evidence, when stricken by the court. (Hyatt v.

Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337.) Generally, in limine motions are disfavored in cases in which they are used not to determine in advance the court's projected ruling if presented with an evidentiary objection during trial, but instead to serve as a substitute for a dispositive statutory motion. (See Pelligrini v. Weiss (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 515; Blanks v. Shaw, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th 336.) Also, in limine motions are not binding and are subject to reconsideration upon full information at trial. (Cristler v.

Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72.) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1: To Exclude All Documents Not Previously Produced in Discovery. Defendants seek to exclude any evidence from trial that was not previously produced in discovery. Defendants argue that they have served multiple discovery requests seeking any documents that were produced in response to subpoenas served by Plaintiffs to River City Bank and John Savage Insurance. However, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not produced any documents that they may have received in response to either subpoena.

Plaintiffs oppose arguing that on October 29, 2025, they did provide Defendants with the requested documents. (See Hunt Decl., Exhs B, C). Where the court has not issued an order compelling a response or further response to request for discovery (and where such an order has not been violated), the party moving for the exclusion of evidence has the burden of establishing the answer given by the responding party was willfully false, i.e., intentionally not true. (Saxena v. Gaffney (2008) 159 Cal.

App. 4th 316, 334; see also Pina v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 531, 552 [only exclude evidence not produced in discovery if not produced in violation of court order or willfully withheld].) Here, Defendants have pointed to no such Order compelling production from Plaintiffs. Further, it appears that Plaintiffs produced these documents to Defendants on October 29, 2025. As such, the Court finds that there is no undue prejudice or surprise to Defendants. Defendant’s MIL No. 1 is DENIED.

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 11/06/2025 Hearing on Motion in Limine in Department 27

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2: To Exclude Any References to Wrongdoing Or Damages that Would Otherwise be Time Barred. Defendants seek exclude claims that monies are due from time periods before April 6, 2019. Here, the Complaint was filed on April 3, 2023. Defendants argue that money sought prior to April 6, 2019, would be beyond the applicable four-year statute of limitations. Further, Defendants argue that any wrongdoing based on contracts that existed prior to April 6, 2020 would be beyond the applicable 3-year statute of limitations.

Defendants argue that any testimony about claims prior to April 6, 2019 on money damages and any testimony about contracts existing prior to April 6, 2020, would confuse the jury and prejudice Defendants. Plaintiffs oppose but provide little or no fact or argument in their opposition. As such, it is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiffs intend to claims damages and wrongdoing beyond the applicable statute of limitations, based on the moving papers. However, at this time, the Complaint does not appear to seek damages prior to January 2020, nor involve any wrongdoing prior to that time.

As such, at this point, it would be premature and speculative for the Court to issue a ruling excluding such evidence. Defendant’s MIL No. 2 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

NOTICE: To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 27 at 916-874-6697 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.) Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 11/06/2025 Hearing on Motion in Limine in Department 27

signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary.