Preview
1 Christian P. Lucia, Esq. (SBN: 203567)
Christopher K. Karic, Esq. (SBN: 184765)
2 SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA ELECTRONICALLY
3 201 N. Civic Dr., Ste. 145 F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 County of San Francisco
4 Telephone: (925) 938-1430
03/17/2021
Facsimile: (925) 256-7508 Clerk of the Court
5 E-mail: clucia@sellarlaw.com; ckaric@sellarlaw.com BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorneys for Defendants
CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION and
7 JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS Case No.: CGC-18-569168
11 ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit,
mutual benefit corporation, on behalf of itself,
12 DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA
and of the extent alleged herein, on behalf of
HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND
13 its members,
JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI
Plaintiff,
CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE
14
NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF
v.
15 WATER PARTICLES AND SAFETY
16 CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD
Complaint filed: August 24, 2018
ASSOCIATION, JAMES E. ROBERTS-
17 OBAYASHI CORPORATION; and DOES 1
Trial Date: March 22, 2021
through 200, inclusive,
18
19 Defendants.
20
21
22 I. INTRODUCTION
23 Defendants California Homestead Association and James E. Roberts-Obayashi
24
Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) hereby move this Court for an order in limine to
25
exclude any and all testimony, photos, videos or documentary evidence depicting, describing,
26
or referencing the rubber particles in the water, the color of the water, and/or the look of the
27
28 1
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI
CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND
PARTICLES
Case No. CGC-18-569168
water at the condominium complex that is the subject of this lawsuit. The motion is based on
1
2 California Evidence Code § 352 and this Court’s inherent authority to control litigation. K.C.
3 Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology and Operations (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939,
4
951.
5
This motion is based on this memorandum, all papers and records contained in the
6
7 Court’s file, and upon such further oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at the
8 time of the hearing on this motion.
9 II. BACKGROUND
10
This case is a construction defect matter involving 34 condominium units located at 601
11
Alabama Street in San Francisco, California, commonly known as “Mosaica,” (hereafter “the
12
13 Development”). The Plaintiff alleges various defects and seeks damages for these defects under
14 Civil Code section 896, also known as SB 800 or “the Right to Repair Act”, but also under
15 strict liability, negligence, breach of contract and others.
16
One particular issue in this case involves the disintegration and corrosion of certain
17
plumbing components at the Development. Some of these components contain a rubber
18
19 material called ethylene propylene diene monomer (“EPDM”) and others contain a different
20 kind of rubber material called Buna-Nitrile (“Buna”). Both of these materials can corrode when
21
they come into contact with chloramine, a water disinfectant that is used to treat the water in
22
San Francisco and many other localities. As a result of this contact between the rubber
23
materials and the San Francisco water at the Development, some of the plumbing components
24
25 have corroded. As a result, disintegrated rubber particles have made their way into the water at
26 the Development, such as when a homeowner turns on a sink. However, Plaintiff’s experts
27
have made it clear that there are absolutely no health hazards associated with the black rubber
28 2
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI
CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND
PARTICLES
Case No. CGC-18-569168
particles if ingested and no claims of adverse health effects are being made in this case.
1
2 (Exhibit A, excerpt from Larry Russell Deposition 36:22-25).
3 III. ARGUMENT
4
A. Evidence of Water Particles Is Irrelevant
5
Under the California Evidence Code section 350, only relevant evidence is admissible,
6
7 and under section 210, “relevant evidence” means evidence that has “any tendency in reason to
8 prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.”
9 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350. In this case, there is no claim of injury resulting from the particles
10
of degraded rubber that have made their way into the water at the Development. Plaintiff’s
11
claims only relate to the defective products and how the degradation thereof has affected the
12
13 functionality and useful life of the products. As such, it is irrelevant that rubber particles made
14 their way into the water and Plaintiff should only be permitted to show the jury, at most,
15 images of the degraded plumbing components themselves. Plaintiff should be prohibited from
16
presenting to the jury any photos, video, or testimony regarding the rubber particles and the
17
look or color of the water. An image of black particles in a sink has no bearing on the claims in
18
19 this case and goes only to undisputed issues.
20 B. Evidence of the Water Particles is Unduly Prejudicial
21
Not only is the evidence of water particles irrelevant, but its presentation to the jury
22
would also be highly prejudicial. Under California Evidence Code section 352, this court has
23
the discretion to exclude evidence if its “probative value is substantially outweighed by the
24
25 probability that its admission will…create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing
26 the issues, or of misleading the jury.” Cal. Evid. Code § 352. Permitting the jury to hear
27
28 3
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI
CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND
PARTICLES
Case No. CGC-18-569168
testimony or view images or video depicting the water particles in a sink, a tub, a glass of
1
2 water, or in any other manner would only serve to prejudice the Defendants.
3 Undue prejudice under section 352 “occurs when the jury is emotionally inflamed
4
against a party without regard to the issues in the case.” Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th
5
998, 1009. Evidence should be excluded “when it is of such a nature as to inflame the emotions
6
7 of the jury, motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon
8 which it is relevant, but to reward or punish one side because of the juror’s emotional reaction.”
9 Id. Upon seeing black particles in a sink, a juror will naturally be fearful and have cause for
10
concern. However, the Plaintiff’s experts have stated that “based on fairly extensive research, it
11
is my opinion that there is not a health hazard from drinking these particles…”. (Larry Russell
12
13 Deposition, 36:22-25). As stated, the jury needs only to see the plumbing components
14 themselves, at most, to understand the associated claim in the case and render a verdict. The
15 jury does not need to see the color of the water to determine whether rubber plumbing
16
components degrade or are defective. Further, this issue is not even in dispute.
17
“Personal attacks on opposing parties and their attorneys, whether outright or by
18
19 insinuation, constitute misconduct” and “such behavior only serves to inflame the passion and
20 prejudice of the jury, distracting them from fulfilling their solemn oath to render a verdict based
21
solely on the evidence admitted at trial.” Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center
22
Associates, (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1246. Allowing Plaintiff to introduce this evidence
23
would only serve to attack the Defendants because it has no real bearing on the claims in
24
25 dispute and only scares the jury. This motion also requests that the court prevent Plaintiff from
26 making a “golden rule” argument—“where counsel asks the jury to place itself in the victim’s
27
shoes and award such damages as they would charge to undergo equivalent pain and suffering.”
28 4
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI
CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND
PARTICLES
Case No. CGC-18-569168
Collins v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2012) 207 Cal. App.4th 867, 883. Golden rule
1
2 arguments are generally improper and appeals to the passions or prejudices of the jury are
3 improper…”. Id. Additionally, the Plaintiff should not be permitted to argue that the jury is the
4
conscience of the community. This is separate and apart from rendering a verdict based on the
5
evidence presented and can only inflame the jury’s emotions. Because there is no claim of
6
7 damages regarding the particles in the water, all evidence concerning the particles or their
8 safety would be both irrelevant and prejudicial. Therefore, this evidence should be excluded.
9 IV. CONCLUSION
10
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants request this court issue an order barring:
11
1. the introduction of photos, video or testimony regarding the rubber particles in
12
13 the water, the color of the water, the alleged dirtiness of the water and any safety issues related
14 to the water (i.e.., irrelevant to any claim in this case and would only serve to inflame and
15 prejudice the jury) in an effort to prime the jury to render a verdict based on passion and
16
prejudice;
17
2. the introduction of testimony and/or argument by plaintiffs related to the
18
19 “golden rule” (i.e., asking the jury to send a message based on how they want to be treated) in
20 an effort to prime the jury to render a verdict based on passion and prejudice; and
21
3. The introduction of evidence regarding the “conscience of the community” (i.e.,
22
asking the jury to send a message in this case) in an effort to prime the jury to render a verdict
23
based on passion and prejudice.
24
25
26
27
28 5
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI
CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND
PARTICLES
Case No. CGC-18-569168
1 Date: March 17, 2021 SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA
2
3 Christopher K. Karic
__________________________________
CHRISTOPHER K. KARIC
4 Attorneys for Defendants
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI
CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND
PARTICLES
Case No. CGC-18-569168
EXHIBIT A
In the Matter of:
Mosaica 601 Homeowners Association vs California Homestead Association, et al.
LARRY L. RUSSELL
March 01, 2021
Job Number: 731270
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT YVer1f
·1· · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
·2· · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
·3· · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---
·4· ·MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS
· · ·ASSOCIATION, a California
·5· ·nonprofit, mutual benefit
· · ·corporation, on behalf of
·6· ·itself, and of the extent
· · ·alleged herein, on behalf of its
·7· ·members,
·8· · · · · · · · Plaintiffs,
·9· · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · Case No. CGC-18-569168
10· ·CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD
· · ·ASSOCIATION, JAMES E.
11· ·ROBERTS-OBAY ASHI CORPORATION;
· · ·and DOES 1 through 200,
12· ·inclusive,
13· · · · · · · · Defendants.
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/
14
· · ·AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/
16
17· · · · · · · · · ·REMOTE DEPOSITION OF
18· · · · · · · · · LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD
19· · · · · · ·MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021, 1:07 p.m.
20· · · · · · · · · REMOTELY IN CALIFORNIA
21
22· · ·Reported by CAROL R. WORSDELL, RMR, CSR No. 11365
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Job No. 731270
23
24
25
YVer1f
YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
·2· · · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---
·4· · ·MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS
· · · ·ASSOCIATION, a California
·5· · ·nonprofit, mutual benefit
· · · ·corporation, on behalf of
·6· · ·itself, and of the extent· · · · · Case No. CGC-18-569168
· · · ·alleged herein, on behalf of its
·7· · ·members
·8· · · · · · · · · Plaintiffs,
·9· · · · · · ·vs.
10· · ·CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD
· · · ·ASSOCIATION, JAMES E.
11· · ·ROBERTS-OBAY ASHI CORPORATION;
· · · ·and DOES 1 through 200,
12· · ·inclusive,
13· · · · · · · · · Defendants.
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/
14
· · · ·AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/
16· · · · · · · · · · · · · --- o0o ---
17
18
19
20
21
22· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD taken
23· ·remotely via Zoom, on MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021, at 1:07
24· ·p.m., before Carol R. Worsdell, Certified Shorthand
25· ·Reporter, in and for the State of California.
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 2 YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S
·2
·3· ·FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
·4· · · · LAW OFFICES HUGHES, GILL, COCHRANE, TINETTI
· · · · · BY:· GRETCHEN LATIMER, ESQ.
·5· · · · 2820 Shadelands Drive, Suite 160
· · · · · Walnut Creek, California 94598
·6· · · · (925) 926-1200
· · · · · Glatimer@hughes-gill.com
·7
·8· ·FOR DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION, JAMES E.
· · ·ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION:
·9
· · · · · LAW OFFICES OF SELLER, HAZARD & LUCIA
10· · · · BY:· CHRISTOPHER K. KARIC, ESQ.
· · · · · 201 North Civic Drive, Suite 145
11· · · · Walnut Creek, California 94596
· · · · · (925) 938.1430
12· · · · Ckaric@sellarlaw.com
13
· · ·ALSO PRESENT:· Anzueth Barela, exhibit tech
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 3 YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
·2· · · · ·Q· · And how it affected water quality?· True?
·3· · · · ·A· · Or how the water quality affected it, yeah.
·4· · · · ·Q· · Yeah.· Fair enough.· EPDM, just so we have a
·5· ·baseline for someone reading this later, what does that
·6· ·stand for?
·7· · · · ·A· · It's ethylene propene diene monomer.
·8· · · · ·Q· · And in plain English, what would that mean?
·9· · · · ·A· · It's a manmade rubber.· It's a very common
10· ·rubber.· All of the gaskets around your car door, you
11· ·know, those molded gaskets that make -- so that water
12· ·doesn't leak it in on your car?· Those are all EPDM.
13· ·It's a very common rubber.
14· · · · ·Q· · And in Armstrong, do you recall testifying
15· ·whether the degradation of the EPDM and what came off of
16· ·the EPDM as a result of that degradation was safe or not
17· ·safe for human drinking?
18· · · · ·A· · I do recall that.
19· · · · ·Q· · Do you remember what your testimony was?
20· · · · ·A· · I do.
21· · · · ·Q· · Go ahead.
22· · · · ·A· · Based on fairly extensive research, it is my
23· ·opinion that there is not a health hazard from drinking
24· ·these particles because while they were never intended
25· ·to be drunk, they are certified for direct contact with
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 36 YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · · · I declare under penalty of perjury that the
·2· ·foregoing is true and correct.· Subscribed at
·3· · · · · · · · · · , California, this· · · ·day of
·4· · · · · · · · · · , 2021.
·5
·6
·7
·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD
·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 137 YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · · · · · · ·REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
·2
·3· · · · I, Carol R. Worsdell, Certified Shorthand Reporter
·4· ·in and for the State of California, do hereby certify:
·5
·6· · · · That the foregoing witness was by me duly sworn;
·7· ·that the deposition was then taken before me at the time
·8· ·and place herein set forth; that the testimony and
·9· ·proceedings were reported stenographically by me and
10· ·later transcribed into typewriting under my direction;
11· ·that the foregoing is a true record of the testimony and
12· ·proceedings taken at that time.
13
14· · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name on
15· ·this date: March 11, 2021
16
17
18
19
20
21
· · · · · · · · · · ·Carol R. Worsdell, CSR No. 11365
22
23
24
25
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 138
EXHIBIT A
In the Matter of:
Mosaica 601 Homeowners Association vs California Homestead Association, et al.
LARRY L. RUSSELL
March 01, 2021
Job Number: 731270
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT YVer1f
·1· · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
·2· · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
·3· · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---
·4· ·MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS
· · ·ASSOCIATION, a California
·5· ·nonprofit, mutual benefit
· · ·corporation, on behalf of
·6· ·itself, and of the extent
· · ·alleged herein, on behalf of its
·7· ·members,
·8· · · · · · · · Plaintiffs,
·9· · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · Case No. CGC-18-569168
10· ·CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD
· · ·ASSOCIATION, JAMES E.
11· ·ROBERTS-OBAY ASHI CORPORATION;
· · ·and DOES 1 through 200,
12· ·inclusive,
13· · · · · · · · Defendants.
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/
14
· · ·AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/
16
17· · · · · · · · · ·REMOTE DEPOSITION OF
18· · · · · · · · · LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD
19· · · · · · ·MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021, 1:07 p.m.
20· · · · · · · · · REMOTELY IN CALIFORNIA
21
22· · ·Reported by CAROL R. WORSDELL, RMR, CSR No. 11365
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Job No. 731270
23
24
25
YVer1f
YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
·2· · · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---
·4· · ·MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS
· · · ·ASSOCIATION, a California
·5· · ·nonprofit, mutual benefit
· · · ·corporation, on behalf of
·6· · ·itself, and of the extent· · · · · Case No. CGC-18-569168
· · · ·alleged herein, on behalf of its
·7· · ·members
·8· · · · · · · · · Plaintiffs,
·9· · · · · · ·vs.
10· · ·CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD
· · · ·ASSOCIATION, JAMES E.
11· · ·ROBERTS-OBAY ASHI CORPORATION;
· · · ·and DOES 1 through 200,
12· · ·inclusive,
13· · · · · · · · · Defendants.
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/
14
· · · ·AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/
16· · · · · · · · · · · · · --- o0o ---
17
18
19
20
21
22· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD taken
23· ·remotely via Zoom, on MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021, at 1:07
24· ·p.m., before Carol R. Worsdell, Certified Shorthand
25· ·Reporter, in and for the State of California.
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 2 YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S
·2
·3· ·FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
·4· · · · LAW OFFICES HUGHES, GILL, COCHRANE, TINETTI
· · · · · BY:· GRETCHEN LATIMER, ESQ.
·5· · · · 2820 Shadelands Drive, Suite 160
· · · · · Walnut Creek, California 94598
·6· · · · (925) 926-1200
· · · · · Glatimer@hughes-gill.com
·7
·8· ·FOR DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION, JAMES E.
· · ·ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION:
·9
· · · · · LAW OFFICES OF SELLER, HAZARD & LUCIA
10· · · · BY:· CHRISTOPHER K. KARIC, ESQ.
· · · · · 201 North Civic Drive, Suite 145
11· · · · Walnut Creek, California 94596
· · · · · (925) 938.1430
12· · · · Ckaric@sellarlaw.com
13
· · ·ALSO PRESENT:· Anzueth Barela, exhibit tech
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 3 YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
·2· · · · ·Q· · And how it affected water quality?· True?
·3· · · · ·A· · Or how the water quality affected it, yeah.
·4· · · · ·Q· · Yeah.· Fair enough.· EPDM, just so we have a
·5· ·baseline for someone reading this later, what does that
·6· ·stand for?
·7· · · · ·A· · It's ethylene propene diene monomer.
·8· · · · ·Q· · And in plain English, what would that mean?
·9· · · · ·A· · It's a manmade rubber.· It's a very common
10· ·rubber.· All of the gaskets around your car door, you
11· ·know, those molded gaskets that make -- so that water
12· ·doesn't leak it in on your car?· Those are all EPDM.
13· ·It's a very common rubber.
14· · · · ·Q· · And in Armstrong, do you recall testifying
15· ·whether the degradation of the EPDM and what came off of
16· ·the EPDM as a result of that degradation was safe or not
17· ·safe for human drinking?
18· · · · ·A· · I do recall that.
19· · · · ·Q· · Do you remember what your testimony was?
20· · · · ·A· · I do.
21· · · · ·Q· · Go ahead.
22· · · · ·A· · Based on fairly extensive research, it is my
23· ·opinion that there is not a health hazard from drinking
24· ·these particles because while they were never intended
25· ·to be drunk, they are certified for direct contact with
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 36 YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · · · I declare under penalty of perjury that the
·2· ·foregoing is true and correct.· Subscribed at
·3· · · · · · · · · · , California, this· · · ·day of
·4· · · · · · · · · · , 2021.
·5
·6
·7
·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD
·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 137 YVer1f
LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021
·1· · · · · · · · · ·REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
·2
·3· · · · I, Carol R. Worsdell, Certified Shorthand Reporter
·4· ·in and for the State of California, do hereby certify:
·5
·6· · · · That the foregoing witness was by me duly sworn;
·7· ·that the deposition was then taken before me at the time
·8· ·and place herein set forth; that the testimony and
·9· ·proceedings were reported stenographically by me and
10· ·later transcribed into typewriting under my direction;
11· ·that the foregoing is a true record of the testimony and
12· ·proceedings taken at that time.
13
14· · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name on
15· ·this date: March 11, 2021
16
17
18
19
20
21
· · · · · · · · · · ·Carol R. Worsdell, CSR No. 11365
22
23
24
25
YVer1f
CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES
855.CENTEXT 138
Preview
1 Christian P. Lucia, Esq. (SBN: 203567) Christopher K. Karic, Esq. (SBN: 184765) 2 SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA ELECTRONICALLY 3 201 N. Civic Dr., Ste. 145 F I L E D Superior Court of California, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 County of San Francisco 4 Telephone: (925) 938-1430 03/17/2021 Facsimile: (925) 256-7508 Clerk of the Court 5 E-mail: clucia@sellarlaw.com; ckaric@sellarlaw.com BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Defendants CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION and 7 JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS Case No.: CGC-18-569168 11 ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit, mutual benefit corporation, on behalf of itself, 12 DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA and of the extent alleged herein, on behalf of HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND 13 its members, JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI Plaintiff, CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE 14 NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF v. 15 WATER PARTICLES AND SAFETY 16 CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD Complaint filed: August 24, 2018 ASSOCIATION, JAMES E. ROBERTS- 17 OBAYASHI CORPORATION; and DOES 1 Trial Date: March 22, 2021 through 200, inclusive, 18 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 Defendants California Homestead Association and James E. Roberts-Obayashi 24 Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) hereby move this Court for an order in limine to 25 exclude any and all testimony, photos, videos or documentary evidence depicting, describing, 26 or referencing the rubber particles in the water, the color of the water, and/or the look of the 27 28 1 DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND PARTICLES Case No. CGC-18-569168 water at the condominium complex that is the subject of this lawsuit. The motion is based on 1 2 California Evidence Code § 352 and this Court’s inherent authority to control litigation. K.C. 3 Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology and Operations (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 4 951. 5 This motion is based on this memorandum, all papers and records contained in the 6 7 Court’s file, and upon such further oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at the 8 time of the hearing on this motion. 9 II. BACKGROUND 10 This case is a construction defect matter involving 34 condominium units located at 601 11 Alabama Street in San Francisco, California, commonly known as “Mosaica,” (hereafter “the 12 13 Development”). The Plaintiff alleges various defects and seeks damages for these defects under 14 Civil Code section 896, also known as SB 800 or “the Right to Repair Act”, but also under 15 strict liability, negligence, breach of contract and others. 16 One particular issue in this case involves the disintegration and corrosion of certain 17 plumbing components at the Development. Some of these components contain a rubber 18 19 material called ethylene propylene diene monomer (“EPDM”) and others contain a different 20 kind of rubber material called Buna-Nitrile (“Buna”). Both of these materials can corrode when 21 they come into contact with chloramine, a water disinfectant that is used to treat the water in 22 San Francisco and many other localities. As a result of this contact between the rubber 23 materials and the San Francisco water at the Development, some of the plumbing components 24 25 have corroded. As a result, disintegrated rubber particles have made their way into the water at 26 the Development, such as when a homeowner turns on a sink. However, Plaintiff’s experts 27 have made it clear that there are absolutely no health hazards associated with the black rubber 28 2 DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND PARTICLES Case No. CGC-18-569168 particles if ingested and no claims of adverse health effects are being made in this case. 1 2 (Exhibit A, excerpt from Larry Russell Deposition 36:22-25). 3 III. ARGUMENT 4 A. Evidence of Water Particles Is Irrelevant 5 Under the California Evidence Code section 350, only relevant evidence is admissible, 6 7 and under section 210, “relevant evidence” means evidence that has “any tendency in reason to 8 prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” 9 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350. In this case, there is no claim of injury resulting from the particles 10 of degraded rubber that have made their way into the water at the Development. Plaintiff’s 11 claims only relate to the defective products and how the degradation thereof has affected the 12 13 functionality and useful life of the products. As such, it is irrelevant that rubber particles made 14 their way into the water and Plaintiff should only be permitted to show the jury, at most, 15 images of the degraded plumbing components themselves. Plaintiff should be prohibited from 16 presenting to the jury any photos, video, or testimony regarding the rubber particles and the 17 look or color of the water. An image of black particles in a sink has no bearing on the claims in 18 19 this case and goes only to undisputed issues. 20 B. Evidence of the Water Particles is Unduly Prejudicial 21 Not only is the evidence of water particles irrelevant, but its presentation to the jury 22 would also be highly prejudicial. Under California Evidence Code section 352, this court has 23 the discretion to exclude evidence if its “probative value is substantially outweighed by the 24 25 probability that its admission will…create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing 26 the issues, or of misleading the jury.” Cal. Evid. Code § 352. Permitting the jury to hear 27 28 3 DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND PARTICLES Case No. CGC-18-569168 testimony or view images or video depicting the water particles in a sink, a tub, a glass of 1 2 water, or in any other manner would only serve to prejudice the Defendants. 3 Undue prejudice under section 352 “occurs when the jury is emotionally inflamed 4 against a party without regard to the issues in the case.” Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 5 998, 1009. Evidence should be excluded “when it is of such a nature as to inflame the emotions 6 7 of the jury, motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon 8 which it is relevant, but to reward or punish one side because of the juror’s emotional reaction.” 9 Id. Upon seeing black particles in a sink, a juror will naturally be fearful and have cause for 10 concern. However, the Plaintiff’s experts have stated that “based on fairly extensive research, it 11 is my opinion that there is not a health hazard from drinking these particles…”. (Larry Russell 12 13 Deposition, 36:22-25). As stated, the jury needs only to see the plumbing components 14 themselves, at most, to understand the associated claim in the case and render a verdict. The 15 jury does not need to see the color of the water to determine whether rubber plumbing 16 components degrade or are defective. Further, this issue is not even in dispute. 17 “Personal attacks on opposing parties and their attorneys, whether outright or by 18 19 insinuation, constitute misconduct” and “such behavior only serves to inflame the passion and 20 prejudice of the jury, distracting them from fulfilling their solemn oath to render a verdict based 21 solely on the evidence admitted at trial.” Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center 22 Associates, (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1246. Allowing Plaintiff to introduce this evidence 23 would only serve to attack the Defendants because it has no real bearing on the claims in 24 25 dispute and only scares the jury. This motion also requests that the court prevent Plaintiff from 26 making a “golden rule” argument—“where counsel asks the jury to place itself in the victim’s 27 shoes and award such damages as they would charge to undergo equivalent pain and suffering.” 28 4 DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND PARTICLES Case No. CGC-18-569168 Collins v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2012) 207 Cal. App.4th 867, 883. Golden rule 1 2 arguments are generally improper and appeals to the passions or prejudices of the jury are 3 improper…”. Id. Additionally, the Plaintiff should not be permitted to argue that the jury is the 4 conscience of the community. This is separate and apart from rendering a verdict based on the 5 evidence presented and can only inflame the jury’s emotions. Because there is no claim of 6 7 damages regarding the particles in the water, all evidence concerning the particles or their 8 safety would be both irrelevant and prejudicial. Therefore, this evidence should be excluded. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants request this court issue an order barring: 11 1. the introduction of photos, video or testimony regarding the rubber particles in 12 13 the water, the color of the water, the alleged dirtiness of the water and any safety issues related 14 to the water (i.e.., irrelevant to any claim in this case and would only serve to inflame and 15 prejudice the jury) in an effort to prime the jury to render a verdict based on passion and 16 prejudice; 17 2. the introduction of testimony and/or argument by plaintiffs related to the 18 19 “golden rule” (i.e., asking the jury to send a message based on how they want to be treated) in 20 an effort to prime the jury to render a verdict based on passion and prejudice; and 21 3. The introduction of evidence regarding the “conscience of the community” (i.e., 22 asking the jury to send a message in this case) in an effort to prime the jury to render a verdict 23 based on passion and prejudice. 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND PARTICLES Case No. CGC-18-569168 1 Date: March 17, 2021 SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA 2 3 Christopher K. Karic __________________________________ CHRISTOPHER K. KARIC 4 Attorneys for Defendants 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WATER SAFETY AND PARTICLES Case No. CGC-18-569168 EXHIBIT A In the Matter of: Mosaica 601 Homeowners Association vs California Homestead Association, et al. LARRY L. RUSSELL March 01, 2021 Job Number: 731270 CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT YVer1f ·1· · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ·2· · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ·3· · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o--- ·4· ·MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS · · ·ASSOCIATION, a California ·5· ·nonprofit, mutual benefit · · ·corporation, on behalf of ·6· ·itself, and of the extent · · ·alleged herein, on behalf of its ·7· ·members, ·8· · · · · · · · Plaintiffs, ·9· · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · Case No. CGC-18-569168 10· ·CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD · · ·ASSOCIATION, JAMES E. 11· ·ROBERTS-OBAY ASHI CORPORATION; · · ·and DOES 1 through 200, 12· ·inclusive, 13· · · · · · · · Defendants. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/ 14 · · ·AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/ 16 17· · · · · · · · · ·REMOTE DEPOSITION OF 18· · · · · · · · · LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD 19· · · · · · ·MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021, 1:07 p.m. 20· · · · · · · · · REMOTELY IN CALIFORNIA 21 22· · ·Reported by CAROL R. WORSDELL, RMR, CSR No. 11365 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Job No. 731270 23 24 25 YVer1f YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ·2· · · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o--- ·4· · ·MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS · · · ·ASSOCIATION, a California ·5· · ·nonprofit, mutual benefit · · · ·corporation, on behalf of ·6· · ·itself, and of the extent· · · · · Case No. CGC-18-569168 · · · ·alleged herein, on behalf of its ·7· · ·members ·8· · · · · · · · · Plaintiffs, ·9· · · · · · ·vs. 10· · ·CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD · · · ·ASSOCIATION, JAMES E. 11· · ·ROBERTS-OBAY ASHI CORPORATION; · · · ·and DOES 1 through 200, 12· · ·inclusive, 13· · · · · · · · · Defendants. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/ 14 · · · ·AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/ 16· · · · · · · · · · · · · --- o0o --- 17 18 19 20 21 22· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD taken 23· ·remotely via Zoom, on MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021, at 1:07 24· ·p.m., before Carol R. Worsdell, Certified Shorthand 25· ·Reporter, in and for the State of California. YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 2 YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S ·2 ·3· ·FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ·4· · · · LAW OFFICES HUGHES, GILL, COCHRANE, TINETTI · · · · · BY:· GRETCHEN LATIMER, ESQ. ·5· · · · 2820 Shadelands Drive, Suite 160 · · · · · Walnut Creek, California 94598 ·6· · · · (925) 926-1200 · · · · · Glatimer@hughes-gill.com ·7 ·8· ·FOR DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION, JAMES E. · · ·ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION: ·9 · · · · · LAW OFFICES OF SELLER, HAZARD & LUCIA 10· · · · BY:· CHRISTOPHER K. KARIC, ESQ. · · · · · 201 North Civic Drive, Suite 145 11· · · · Walnut Creek, California 94596 · · · · · (925) 938.1430 12· · · · Ckaric@sellarlaw.com 13 · · ·ALSO PRESENT:· Anzueth Barela, exhibit tech 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 3 YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · ·A· · Yes, sir. ·2· · · · ·Q· · And how it affected water quality?· True? ·3· · · · ·A· · Or how the water quality affected it, yeah. ·4· · · · ·Q· · Yeah.· Fair enough.· EPDM, just so we have a ·5· ·baseline for someone reading this later, what does that ·6· ·stand for? ·7· · · · ·A· · It's ethylene propene diene monomer. ·8· · · · ·Q· · And in plain English, what would that mean? ·9· · · · ·A· · It's a manmade rubber.· It's a very common 10· ·rubber.· All of the gaskets around your car door, you 11· ·know, those molded gaskets that make -- so that water 12· ·doesn't leak it in on your car?· Those are all EPDM. 13· ·It's a very common rubber. 14· · · · ·Q· · And in Armstrong, do you recall testifying 15· ·whether the degradation of the EPDM and what came off of 16· ·the EPDM as a result of that degradation was safe or not 17· ·safe for human drinking? 18· · · · ·A· · I do recall that. 19· · · · ·Q· · Do you remember what your testimony was? 20· · · · ·A· · I do. 21· · · · ·Q· · Go ahead. 22· · · · ·A· · Based on fairly extensive research, it is my 23· ·opinion that there is not a health hazard from drinking 24· ·these particles because while they were never intended 25· ·to be drunk, they are certified for direct contact with YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 36 YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · · · I declare under penalty of perjury that the ·2· ·foregoing is true and correct.· Subscribed at ·3· · · · · · · · · · , California, this· · · ·day of ·4· · · · · · · · · · , 2021. ·5 ·6 ·7 ·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD ·9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 137 YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · · · · · · ·REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION ·2 ·3· · · · I, Carol R. Worsdell, Certified Shorthand Reporter ·4· ·in and for the State of California, do hereby certify: ·5 ·6· · · · That the foregoing witness was by me duly sworn; ·7· ·that the deposition was then taken before me at the time ·8· ·and place herein set forth; that the testimony and ·9· ·proceedings were reported stenographically by me and 10· ·later transcribed into typewriting under my direction; 11· ·that the foregoing is a true record of the testimony and 12· ·proceedings taken at that time. 13 14· · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name on 15· ·this date: March 11, 2021 16 17 18 19 20 21 · · · · · · · · · · ·Carol R. Worsdell, CSR No. 11365 22 23 24 25 YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 138 EXHIBIT A In the Matter of: Mosaica 601 Homeowners Association vs California Homestead Association, et al. LARRY L. RUSSELL March 01, 2021 Job Number: 731270 CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT YVer1f ·1· · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ·2· · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ·3· · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o--- ·4· ·MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS · · ·ASSOCIATION, a California ·5· ·nonprofit, mutual benefit · · ·corporation, on behalf of ·6· ·itself, and of the extent · · ·alleged herein, on behalf of its ·7· ·members, ·8· · · · · · · · Plaintiffs, ·9· · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · Case No. CGC-18-569168 10· ·CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD · · ·ASSOCIATION, JAMES E. 11· ·ROBERTS-OBAY ASHI CORPORATION; · · ·and DOES 1 through 200, 12· ·inclusive, 13· · · · · · · · Defendants. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/ 14 · · ·AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/ 16 17· · · · · · · · · ·REMOTE DEPOSITION OF 18· · · · · · · · · LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD 19· · · · · · ·MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021, 1:07 p.m. 20· · · · · · · · · REMOTELY IN CALIFORNIA 21 22· · ·Reported by CAROL R. WORSDELL, RMR, CSR No. 11365 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Job No. 731270 23 24 25 YVer1f YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ·2· · · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o--- ·4· · ·MOSAICA 601 HOMEOWNERS · · · ·ASSOCIATION, a California ·5· · ·nonprofit, mutual benefit · · · ·corporation, on behalf of ·6· · ·itself, and of the extent· · · · · Case No. CGC-18-569168 · · · ·alleged herein, on behalf of its ·7· · ·members ·8· · · · · · · · · Plaintiffs, ·9· · · · · · ·vs. 10· · ·CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD · · · ·ASSOCIATION, JAMES E. 11· · ·ROBERTS-OBAY ASHI CORPORATION; · · · ·and DOES 1 through 200, 12· · ·inclusive, 13· · · · · · · · · Defendants. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/ 14 · · · ·AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·/ 16· · · · · · · · · · · · · --- o0o --- 17 18 19 20 21 22· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD taken 23· ·remotely via Zoom, on MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021, at 1:07 24· ·p.m., before Carol R. Worsdell, Certified Shorthand 25· ·Reporter, in and for the State of California. YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 2 YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S ·2 ·3· ·FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ·4· · · · LAW OFFICES HUGHES, GILL, COCHRANE, TINETTI · · · · · BY:· GRETCHEN LATIMER, ESQ. ·5· · · · 2820 Shadelands Drive, Suite 160 · · · · · Walnut Creek, California 94598 ·6· · · · (925) 926-1200 · · · · · Glatimer@hughes-gill.com ·7 ·8· ·FOR DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION, JAMES E. · · ·ROBERTS-OBAYASHI CORPORATION: ·9 · · · · · LAW OFFICES OF SELLER, HAZARD & LUCIA 10· · · · BY:· CHRISTOPHER K. KARIC, ESQ. · · · · · 201 North Civic Drive, Suite 145 11· · · · Walnut Creek, California 94596 · · · · · (925) 938.1430 12· · · · Ckaric@sellarlaw.com 13 · · ·ALSO PRESENT:· Anzueth Barela, exhibit tech 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 3 YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · ·A· · Yes, sir. ·2· · · · ·Q· · And how it affected water quality?· True? ·3· · · · ·A· · Or how the water quality affected it, yeah. ·4· · · · ·Q· · Yeah.· Fair enough.· EPDM, just so we have a ·5· ·baseline for someone reading this later, what does that ·6· ·stand for? ·7· · · · ·A· · It's ethylene propene diene monomer. ·8· · · · ·Q· · And in plain English, what would that mean? ·9· · · · ·A· · It's a manmade rubber.· It's a very common 10· ·rubber.· All of the gaskets around your car door, you 11· ·know, those molded gaskets that make -- so that water 12· ·doesn't leak it in on your car?· Those are all EPDM. 13· ·It's a very common rubber. 14· · · · ·Q· · And in Armstrong, do you recall testifying 15· ·whether the degradation of the EPDM and what came off of 16· ·the EPDM as a result of that degradation was safe or not 17· ·safe for human drinking? 18· · · · ·A· · I do recall that. 19· · · · ·Q· · Do you remember what your testimony was? 20· · · · ·A· · I do. 21· · · · ·Q· · Go ahead. 22· · · · ·A· · Based on fairly extensive research, it is my 23· ·opinion that there is not a health hazard from drinking 24· ·these particles because while they were never intended 25· ·to be drunk, they are certified for direct contact with YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 36 YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · · · I declare under penalty of perjury that the ·2· ·foregoing is true and correct.· Subscribed at ·3· · · · · · · · · · , California, this· · · ·day of ·4· · · · · · · · · · , 2021. ·5 ·6 ·7 ·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · LARRY L. RUSSELL, PHD ·9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 137 YVer1f LARRY L. RUSSELL - 03/01/2021 ·1· · · · · · · · · ·REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION ·2 ·3· · · · I, Carol R. Worsdell, Certified Shorthand Reporter ·4· ·in and for the State of California, do hereby certify: ·5 ·6· · · · That the foregoing witness was by me duly sworn; ·7· ·that the deposition was then taken before me at the time ·8· ·and place herein set forth; that the testimony and ·9· ·proceedings were reported stenographically by me and 10· ·later transcribed into typewriting under my direction; 11· ·that the foregoing is a true record of the testimony and 12· ·proceedings taken at that time. 13 14· · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name on 15· ·this date: March 11, 2021 16 17 18 19 20 21 · · · · · · · · · · ·Carol R. Worsdell, CSR No. 11365 22 23 24 25 YVer1f CENTEXT LITIGATION SERVICES 855.CENTEXT 138