SEAN RASHTI
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
| SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES |
|
| SEAN RASHTI,
Plaintiff vs. TOBY WANK Defendant
|
Case No.: 19STCV42312
Judge: Honorable Thomas D. Long Dept: 31 NOTICE OF MOTION ; MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DIMINISHED CAPACITY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF |
NOTICE OF MOTION
To Toby Wank and to all Attorneys of Record:
Please TAKE NOTICE that on [ENTER DATE], at [ENTER TIME] or soon thereafter, the Plaintiff herein will move this Court, in Department 31 for an order to exclude evidence of diminished capacity as set forth herein.
This motion will be based on the grounds that Plaintiff has a medical condition that affects his focus abilities, as alleged herein.
Further, the motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum set forth below, the Plaintiff’s declaration, on the records and file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.
Dated: [ENTER DATE]
|
SEAN RASHTI
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
| SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES |
|
| SEAN RASHTI,
Plaintiff vs. TOBY WANK Defendant
|
Case No.: 19STCV42312
Judge: Honorable Thomas D. Long Dept: 31 NOTICE OF MOTION ; MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DIMINISHED CAPACITY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF |
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DIMINISHED CAPACITY
NOW COMES SEAN RASHTI, Plaintiff, Proceeding Pro Se, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1112., et seq., who hereby moves this Court for an Order, in limine, to exclude evidence of diminished capacity as alleged herein.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT FOR MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DIMINISHED CAPACITY
The Plaintiff hereby moves this Court for an Order, in limine, to exclude from Trial, any evidence related to Plaintiff’s diminished capacity. A deposition of the Plaintiff in that regard would occasion undue burden on Plaintiff. Accordingly, the evidence is inadmissible; it would amount substantial danger of undue prejudice; and it would necessitate undue consumption of time pursuant to Evidence Code, §§ 350 and 352.
“The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984). A typical order in limine excludes the challenged evidence and directs counsel, parties, and witnesses not to refer to the excluded matters during trial. See 3 Witkin, Cal. Evidence [ (3d. ed.1986) ], § 2011 at p. 1969. It is also worth noting that “[n]o evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.”]; People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 90 [“The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence, but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.”]
Under Evidence Code section 352, the probative value of the proffered evidence must not be substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission would create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1195.
Plaintiff moves for this Order because it is anticipated that the Defendant may attempt to elicit the deposition of the Plaintiff. However, in consideration of Plaintiff’s diminished capacity, the Plaintiff cannot keep up with focusing. Plaintiff has a medical condition, which is caused by a chemical imbalance. Accordingly, Plaintiff has to take seizure medications daily, which affect Plaintiff’s cognitive ability.
Besides, the COVID pandemic has also borne a heavy toll on Plaintiff. His doctor, who was a county psychiatrist, had resolved to take a vacation and retire during the pandemic. The doctor and the health center cancelled several of his medical appointments. Accordingly, Plaintiff was not medicated, and no follow-up was done on his prescription medicine. He also suffered COVID related depression. Plaintiff was referred to other psychiatrists, who also failed to commit to Plaintiff’s care. The foregoing, in addition to other family dynamics caused by COVID-19 implications, the Plaintiff cannot focus for a long period of time.
In sum, the Plaintiff has a difficulty in keeping up with focused undertakings, because of the said condition. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot be subjected to witness deposition because of the said reason.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an order precluding Plaintiff from eliciting or presenting any evidence, testimony or otherwise of Plaintiff’s diminished capacity.
DATED:
|
Respectfully submitted,
SEAN RASHTI
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
| SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES |
|
| SEAN RASHTI,
Plaintiff vs. TOBY WANK Defendant
|
Case No.: 19STCV42312
Judge: Honorable Thomas D. Long Dept: 31 NOTICE OF MOTION ; MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF |
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
I, SEAN RASHTI, declare
- I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action.
- I have a medical condition that causes chemical imbalances on my body.
- I have to use multiple seizure medications daily with side effects that hamper all cognitive functions.
- During the pandemic, I have had trouble receiving psychiatric care.
- As a result of my condition, I have a difficulty in keeping up with focused undertakings.
- I ask that the court precludes any evidence of my diminished capacity.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
|
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], a copy of the foregoing document has been sent to the Defendant in the following address:
[ENTER ADDRESSES FOR DEFENDANT].
DATED:
|