Can a motion in limine to preclude testimony or questions concerning the content of publications on direct examination preserve a claim of attorney misconduct for appeal?

^5. Olar asserts her pretrial motion in limine to preclude testimony or questions concerning the content of publications on direct examination preserves her claim of attorney misconduct for appeal. We disagree, as the motion in limine could not substitute for a timely objection on the ground of misconduct. (See, e.g., Neumann v. Bishop (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 451, 468 ["when confronted by misconduct of counsel an adversary generally must, first, object or otherwise direct the court's attention to the misconduct and, second, move for a mistrial to seek a curative admonition."]