What is the test for exclusion of future civil litigation evidence in a medical malpractice case?

The trial court balanced the minimal probative value of possible future civil litigation evidence against what it found was the high probability its admission would have necessitated undue consumption of time or confused the issues, or misled the jury. "It's . . . unduly prejudicial, speculative, as well as undue consumption of time. The danger of misleading and confusing the jury is substantial and will outweigh any probative value of that evidence." On this ground, therefore, the exclusion of such evidence was not plain error. (Cf. People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 585, overruled on other grounds in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305.)

Defendant counters that the civil litigation issues would not have been unduly time-consuming to present. We disagree.