The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering an in limine motion that effectively prevented plaintiff from presenting any evidence at trial. Plaintiff had not complied with the superior court’s local rule requiring an exchange of exhibits and witness lists a week before trial. Also, plaintiff had not responded to defendant’s written discovery or presented its witnesses for deposition in response to defendant’s repeated deposition notices. A trial court’s “inherent power to curb abuses and promote fair process extends to the preclusion of evidence” at trial. (Peat, Marwick, Mitchel & Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288.) The order was proper to prevent prejudice to the defendant who had no idea what plaintiff’s evidence would be despite repeated discovery efforts. No express finding of wilfulness on plaintiff’s part was required. Nor did defendant forfeit its rights by not moving to compel responses to its discovery.