Bangs v. Follin, K15C-05-008 JJC

Plaintiff Robert Bangs sued former landlords Diana and Dawn Follin, claiming he fell through a hole in a residence he rented. Trial set for January 23, 2017.
Defendants allege Bangs falsified or exaggerated his injury claim, motivated by financial need and disputes with the landlords.
Parties exchanged proposed trial exhibits; Bangs moved in limine to exclude certain defense exhibits and expert reports.
Bangs principally sought exclusion of evidence of his poverty as proof of motive to fabricate and exclusion of defendants’ written expert reports.
The court conducted pretrial evidentiary rulings: excluded poverty evidence and certain exhibits, excluded written expert reports, and reserved ruling on other objections pending trial context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of poverty evidence to show motive to falsify claim	Poverty is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; should be excluded	Poverty is probative of motive to fabricate claim	Excluded: poverty evidence inadmissible for any purpose absent Bangs opening the door; specific exhibits (Def. Ex. 4, 10, 21, 25) barred under DRE 403
Use of poverty evidence under DRE 404(b) (motive, intent, plan)	DRE 404(b) should not permit poverty evidence; still inadmissible	Evidence may be relevant under DRE 404(b) for non-character purposes	Court: 404(b) evidence may be relevant in civil cases but poverty evidence still excluded under DRE 403 without further context; reserved decision on other 404(b) proffers until trial
Admissibility of defendants’ written expert reports	Written expert reports should be excluded as hearsay/cumulative	Reports may be admissible to refresh recollection or under hearsay exceptions	Excluded: written expert reports inadmissible at trial; underlying photographs/charts may be admitted separately; reports may be used to refresh recollection under DRE 612 if proper
Other documentary/hearsay/foundation objections to defense exhibits	Many exhibits lack foundation or are prejudicial	Defendants contend some documents are directly relevant to tenancy disputes and relationship course	Reserved: court held these objections require live evidentiary context and invited parties to proffer relevance and confer before trial

United States v. Mitchell, 172 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (poverty generally inadmissible to show motive to commit crime)
Hodge v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co., 293 P. 80 (Cal.) (poverty inadmissible in civil damage actions; introducing it is reversible error)
Rizzi v. Mason, 799 A.2d 1178 (Del. Super.) (physician reports inadmissible absent proper hearsay foundation)