Sacramento Auto Accident Victim Uses Experts In Brain Injury Case, Part 6 of 6
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE
Relevant evidence is defined by Evidence Code Section 210 as having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. See People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523. A party is entitled to have all competent, material and relevant evidence admitted if it tends to prove or disprove a material issue raised by the pleadings. Bole v. Bole (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 344-345-346.
Plaintiffs' expert witness David Goldberg will be expressing opinions consistent with those outlined in the expert designation served by the plaintiffs. As explained above, such testimony is directly relevant to the issues in dispute. Therefore, plaintiffs oppose defendant's motion in limine #6 to limit plaintiffs' expert testimony at trial.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs respectfully request that the court deny defendants' motion in limine # 6 seeking an order limiting plaintiffs' expert witness, David Goldberg, from testifying about biomechanical issues at trial.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
