On January 22, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Chulick, Carol,
Hagen, Deborah,
Hagler, Joleen,
and
Anheuser-Busch, Llc,
Anheuserbusch, Llc,
Associated Insulation Of California,
Buttner Corp.,
Columbia Mechanical Contractors, Inc.,
Cooper Brothers, Inc.,
Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.,
Does 1 Through 800, Inclusive, As Required By,
D. Zelinksy & Sons, Inc.,
D. Zelinsky & Sons, Incorporated,
Fdcc California, Inc.,
Frank Bonetti Plumbing, Inc.,
George H. Wilson, Inc.,
George Wilson Company, Inc.,
Grinnell Llc,
Grinnell Llc (Fka Grinnell Corporation, Aka,
Johnson Controls, Inc.,
Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.,
Kellymoore Paint Company, Inc.,
Marconi Plastering Company, Inc.,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
Monterey Mechanical Co.,
Riley Power Inc.,
Rosendin Electric, Inc.,
Rudolph And Sletten, Inc.,
Scott Co. Of California,
Texaco Inc.,
W.L. Hickey Sons, Inc.,
Chulick, Carol,
Hagen, Deborah,
Hagler, Joleen,
for ASBESTOS
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
1 Theodore T. Cordery, Esq. (Bar No. 114730)
Email: tcordery@itkc.com
2 Michael J. Boland, Esq. (Bar No. 98343)
Email: mboland@itkc.com ELECTRONICALLY
3 Michael S. Romeo, Esq. (Bar No. 180978) F I L E D
Email: mromeo@itkc.com Superior Court of California,
4 IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP County of San Francisco
1660 SOUTH AMPHLETT BLVD, SUITE 300 01/19/2022
5 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 Clerk of the Court
Telephone: (415) 260-4595 BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ
6 Facsimile: (415) 329-2244 Deputy Clerk
7 Attorneys for Defendant
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
11 IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
13 CAROL CHULICK, as Successor-in-Interest to CASE NO.: CGC-19-276757
and as Wrongful Death Heir of JOHN
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
(415) 260-4595
CHULICK, Deceased; and DEBORAH (ASBESTOS)
LAW O FF ICES
14
HAGEN and JOLEEN HAGLER, as Wrongful
15 Death Heirs of JOHN CHULICK, Deceased, MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S
OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER
16 Plaintiffs, DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE
v. LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY
17 OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1,
RILEY POWER INC., et al., 2021
18
Defendants. Judge The Hon. Jeffrey Ross
19 Dept: 502
Complaint Filed: January 22, 2019
20 Trial Date: December 27, 2021
21
22
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
23
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.
24
(hereinafter “MONTEREY MECHANICAL”) hereby submits the following objections and
25
counter-designations to Plaintiffs’ Page and Line Designations of the Deposition testimony of
26
Robert Cantley taken in the instant case Chulick v. Riley Power, Inc., et al. San Francisco
27
County Superior Court Case CGC-19-276757, taken June 1, 2021, Volume 1.
28
-1-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Defendant hereby objects to the designation of the entire transcript to the extent that
2 Plaintiffs have not proven that Mr. Cantley is unavailable for Trial. (Evid. Code § 1291)
3 Therefore, designation of this testimony constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Defendant requests that
4 counsel for Plaintiff be instructed not to introduce any such deposition testimony in the presence
5 of the jury without first obtaining the permission of the Court outside the presence of the jury.
6 Defendant offers the following objections without waiving any objections it may have
7 regarding the use of any portion of this deposition against Defendant at Trial.
8 Defendant specifically reserves the right to supplement or amend these objections and
9 counter designations as necessary.
10 Defendant Monterey Mechanical, Co., hereby joins in all other objections made by
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
11 any other Defendant.
12 ROBERT CANTLEY, VOL 1, DATED JUNE 1, 2021.
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
13 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
Designations
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14 15:8-9 everything after Sustained
1951 should be stricken as Overruled
15
non responsive. Obj. W/D
16 Design W/D
15:10-14 – irrelevant.
17 19:2-38:17 Overbroad,
15:1-38:17 vague as to time, calls for
18 speculation, calls for
expert opinion, lacks
19
foundation, non-
20 responsive, irrelevant.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 40:2-20; No question Sustained
pending; narrative, lacks Overruled
3 Obj. W/D
foundation; improper lay
4 opinion; irrelevant, more Design W/D
prejudicial than probative
5 (Evi. §352)
6 40:25 (after “no”) to 42:1;
narrative, lacks
7 foundation; assumes facts;
calls for speculation;
8 improper lay opinion;
9 irrelevant, more
prejudicial than probative
10 (Evi. §352)
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
11 40:2-4; improper attorney
testimony.
12 40:5-21; narrative, lacks
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
foundation; assumes facts;
13
calls for speculation;
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
improper lay opinion;
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14 40:2 – 63:10
irrelevant, more
15 prejudicial than probative
(Evi. §352)
16
42:22-43:25; narrative,
17 non-responsive; lacks
foundation, assumes facts,
18 improper lay opinion;
more prejudicial than
19
probative (Evi. §352)
20 44:1-47:10; narrative,
non-responsive; lacks
21
foundation, assumes facts,
22 improper lay opinion;
improper expert opinion;
23 more prejudicial than
probative (Evi. §352)
24
47:11-48:9 – irrelevant;
25 narrative, non-responsive;
lacks foundation
26
27
28
-3-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 48:19-50:17 narrative,
3 non-responsive;
overbroad; vague; lacks
4 foundation, assumes facts,
improper lay opinion;
5 improper expert opinion;
more prejudicial than
6 probative (Evi. §352)
7 50:18-50:1 – Compound
question; improper
8 attorney testimony
9 51:4-52:15 narrative, non-
responsive; overbroad;
10 vague; lacks foundation,
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
11 assumes facts, more
prejudicial than probative
12 (Evi. §352)
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
40:2 – 63:10
53:13-54:23 overbroad;
13 (continued)
vague; lacks foundation,
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
assumes facts, more
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14
prejudicial than probative
15 (Evi. §352)
16 54:24-56:20; non
responsive, lacks
17 foundation, assumes facts,
more prejudicial than
18 probative (Evi. §352)
19 58:21-60:13; non
responsive; lacks
20 foundation; irrelevant.
21 60:14-62:15; attorney
colloquy; leading; non-
22 responsive.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 64:22-67:13; non Sustained
responsive; narrative, Overruled
3 Obj. W/D
lacks foundation, vague as
4 to time; irrelevant more Design W/D
prejudicial than probative
5 (Evi. §352)
6 69:10-73:2; non
responsive; narrative,
7 lacks foundation, vague as
to time; irrelevant, more
8 prejudicial than probative
9 (Evi. §352)
73:3-5 attorney testimony
10
64:22 – 87:5
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
74:9-74:20; Hearsay;
11 leading
12 74:21-77:25; Irrelevant;
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
narrative, non-responsive;
13 more prejudicial than
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
probative (Evi. §352)
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14
78:1-81:21; leading,
15 narrative, overbroad, non-
responsive, improper
16 recollection refreshed;
hearsay; more prejudicial
17
than probative (Evi. §352)
18
19 Sustained
87:7 – 95:14 Overruled
20 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
21 Sustained
95:23 – 98:5 Overruled
22 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
23 Sustained
98:11 – 99:15 Overruled
24 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
25 Sustained
99:19 – 100:18 Overruled
26 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
27
28
-5-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 Sustained
100:25 – 101:3 Overruled
3 Obj. W/D
4 Design W/D
Sustained
5 101:5-24 Overruled
Obj. W/D
6 Design W/D
Sustained
7 102:4-8 Overruled
Obj. W/D
8 Design W/D
Sustained
9 102:13-18 Overruled
Obj. W/D
10 Design W/D
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
Sustained
11 102:20 – 106:10 Overruled
Obj. W/D
12 Design W/D
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
Sustained
13 Overruled
108:12-14
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
Obj. W/D
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14 Design W/D
Sustained
15 Overruled
108:16 – 113:8
Obj. W/D
16 Design W/D
Sustained
17 Overruled
113:11 – 114:13
Obj. W/D
18 Design W/D
19 Sustained
115:8-15 Overruled
20 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
21 Sustained
115:19 – 116:12 Overruled
22 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
23 Sustained
124:5 – 126:25 Overruled
24 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
25 Sustained
128:8-14 Overruled
26 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
27
28
-6-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 Sustained
128:25 – 131:25 Overruled
3 Obj. W/D
4 Design W/D
Sustained
5 132:7 – 138:23 Overruled
Obj. W/D
6 Design W/D
Sustained
7 139:2-25 Overruled
Obj. W/D
8 Design W/D
Sustained
9 140:8 – 141:10 Overruled
Obj. W/D
10 Design W/D
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
Sustained
11 141:14 – 142:2 Overruled
Obj. W/D
12 Design W/D
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
13
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 157:15-21; Calls for Sustained
speculation; lacks Overruled
3 Obj. W/D
foundation
4 Design W/D
157:22-157:5; non
5 responsive; calls for
speculation.
6 158:10-13; Call for
speculation; lacks
7
foundation; improper
8 expert testimony.
158:14-25 Non-
9
responsive, irrelevant;
10 calls for speculation.
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
159:1-5; lacks foundation,
11
calls for speculation,
12 155:15 – 162:25 improper expert testimony
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
160:6-13 calls for
13 speculation; lacks
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
foundation.
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14
161:6-20; lacks
15 foundation, calls for
16 speculation, improper
expert testimony
17 162:17-21; asked and
18 answered; assumes facts
(see 163:1-10.)
19 162:22-25; lacks
foundation, calls for
20
speculation.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 163:21-164:13 lacks Sustained
foundation, calls for Overruled
3 Obj. W/D
speculation,
4 Design W/D
164:14-18; Compound
5 164:22-165:1 Non-
responsive. Lacks
6 163:14 – 165:16 foundation; improper
expert testimony
7
165:2-16; Lacks
8 foundation; calls for
speculation; improper
9
expert testimony; non-
10 responsive.
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
Lacks foundation; calls Sustained
11 Overruled
for speculation; improper
expert testimony; non- Obj. W/D
12 165:19 – 166:23 Design W/D
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
responsive.
13
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 167:2-16; Lacks Sustained
foundation; calls for Overruled
3 Obj. W/D
speculation; vague as to
4 time and location; Design W/D
assumes facts; non-
5 responsive.
6 167:17-168:11; Lacks
foundation; calls for
7 speculation; vague as to
time and location;
8 assumes facts; improper
9 expert testimony; non-
responsive.
10 168:16 – everything after
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
11 “never” – 169:25 Lacks
foundation; calls for
12 speculation; vague as to
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
time and location;
13 assumes facts; improper
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
expert testimony; non-
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14 responsive.
15 169:8- everything after
“they wouldn’t”-170:8
16 Lacks foundation; calls
167:2 – 176:22
17 for speculation; vague as
to time and location;
18 assumes facts; improper
expert testimony; non-
19 responsive.
20 170:9- “off” 10 – attorney
testimony.
21
170:10-16 after “off”; non
22 responsive; calls for
speculation; improper
23 expert testimony.
24 170:21 – 25 everything
after “absolutely.” non
25 responsive; calls for
speculation; lacks
26 foundation; improper
expert testimony.
27
171:6-172:16; Non
28 responsive, lacks
foundation; improper
expert testimony. -10-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 Sustained
177:16 – 182:5 Overruled
3 Obj. W/D
4 Design W/D
Sustained
5 182:8-25 Overruled
Obj. W/D
6 Design W/D
Sustained
7 183:4-10 Overruled
Obj. W/D
8 Design W/D
Sustained
9 183:14 – 184:11 Overruled
Obj. W/D
10 Design W/D
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
Sustained
11 184:14-16 Overruled
Obj. W/D
12 Design W/D
1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300
Sustained
13 Overruled
184:18
SAN MAT E O, CA 94402
Obj. W/D
(415) 260-4595
LAW O FF ICES
14 Design W/D
Sustained
15 Overruled
184:20 – 187:16
Obj. W/D
16 Design W/D
Sustained
17 Overruled
187:23 – 188:4
Obj. W/D
18 Design W/D
19 Sustained
188:14 – 189:5 Overruled
20 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
21 Sustained
189:19 – 197:14 Overruled
22 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
23 Sustained
197:19 – 200:21 Overruled
24 Obj. W/D
Design W/D
25 DESIGNATIONS
AS TO COSCO
26 FIRE
PROTECTION,
27
INC.
28
-11-
MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021
1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling
Designations
2 Sustained
201:9-14 Overruled
3
Preview
1 Theodore T. Cordery, Esq. (Bar No. 114730) Email: tcordery@itkc.com 2 Michael J. Boland, Esq. (Bar No. 98343) Email: mboland@itkc.com ELECTRONICALLY 3 Michael S. Romeo, Esq. (Bar No. 180978) F I L E D Email: mromeo@itkc.com Superior Court of California, 4 IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP County of San Francisco 1660 SOUTH AMPHLETT BLVD, SUITE 300 01/19/2022 5 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 Clerk of the Court Telephone: (415) 260-4595 BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ 6 Facsimile: (415) 329-2244 Deputy Clerk 7 Attorneys for Defendant MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO. 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 11 IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 13 CAROL CHULICK, as Successor-in-Interest to CASE NO.: CGC-19-276757 and as Wrongful Death Heir of JOHN SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 (415) 260-4595 CHULICK, Deceased; and DEBORAH (ASBESTOS) LAW O FF ICES 14 HAGEN and JOLEEN HAGLER, as Wrongful 15 Death Heirs of JOHN CHULICK, Deceased, MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER 16 Plaintiffs, DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE v. LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY 17 OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, RILEY POWER INC., et al., 2021 18 Defendants. Judge The Hon. Jeffrey Ross 19 Dept: 502 Complaint Filed: January 22, 2019 20 Trial Date: December 27, 2021 21 22 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO. 24 (hereinafter “MONTEREY MECHANICAL”) hereby submits the following objections and 25 counter-designations to Plaintiffs’ Page and Line Designations of the Deposition testimony of 26 Robert Cantley taken in the instant case Chulick v. Riley Power, Inc., et al. San Francisco 27 County Superior Court Case CGC-19-276757, taken June 1, 2021, Volume 1. 28 -1- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Defendant hereby objects to the designation of the entire transcript to the extent that 2 Plaintiffs have not proven that Mr. Cantley is unavailable for Trial. (Evid. Code § 1291) 3 Therefore, designation of this testimony constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Defendant requests that 4 counsel for Plaintiff be instructed not to introduce any such deposition testimony in the presence 5 of the jury without first obtaining the permission of the Court outside the presence of the jury. 6 Defendant offers the following objections without waiving any objections it may have 7 regarding the use of any portion of this deposition against Defendant at Trial. 8 Defendant specifically reserves the right to supplement or amend these objections and 9 counter designations as necessary. 10 Defendant Monterey Mechanical, Co., hereby joins in all other objections made by IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 11 any other Defendant. 12 ROBERT CANTLEY, VOL 1, DATED JUNE 1, 2021. 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 13 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 Designations (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 15:8-9 everything after Sustained 1951 should be stricken as Overruled 15 non responsive. Obj. W/D 16 Design W/D 15:10-14 – irrelevant. 17 19:2-38:17 Overbroad, 15:1-38:17 vague as to time, calls for 18 speculation, calls for expert opinion, lacks 19 foundation, non- 20 responsive, irrelevant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 40:2-20; No question Sustained pending; narrative, lacks Overruled 3 Obj. W/D foundation; improper lay 4 opinion; irrelevant, more Design W/D prejudicial than probative 5 (Evi. §352) 6 40:25 (after “no”) to 42:1; narrative, lacks 7 foundation; assumes facts; calls for speculation; 8 improper lay opinion; 9 irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative 10 (Evi. §352) IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 11 40:2-4; improper attorney testimony. 12 40:5-21; narrative, lacks 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 foundation; assumes facts; 13 calls for speculation; SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 improper lay opinion; (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 40:2 – 63:10 irrelevant, more 15 prejudicial than probative (Evi. §352) 16 42:22-43:25; narrative, 17 non-responsive; lacks foundation, assumes facts, 18 improper lay opinion; more prejudicial than 19 probative (Evi. §352) 20 44:1-47:10; narrative, non-responsive; lacks 21 foundation, assumes facts, 22 improper lay opinion; improper expert opinion; 23 more prejudicial than probative (Evi. §352) 24 47:11-48:9 – irrelevant; 25 narrative, non-responsive; lacks foundation 26 27 28 -3- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 48:19-50:17 narrative, 3 non-responsive; overbroad; vague; lacks 4 foundation, assumes facts, improper lay opinion; 5 improper expert opinion; more prejudicial than 6 probative (Evi. §352) 7 50:18-50:1 – Compound question; improper 8 attorney testimony 9 51:4-52:15 narrative, non- responsive; overbroad; 10 vague; lacks foundation, IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 11 assumes facts, more prejudicial than probative 12 (Evi. §352) 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 40:2 – 63:10 53:13-54:23 overbroad; 13 (continued) vague; lacks foundation, SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 assumes facts, more (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 prejudicial than probative 15 (Evi. §352) 16 54:24-56:20; non responsive, lacks 17 foundation, assumes facts, more prejudicial than 18 probative (Evi. §352) 19 58:21-60:13; non responsive; lacks 20 foundation; irrelevant. 21 60:14-62:15; attorney colloquy; leading; non- 22 responsive. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 64:22-67:13; non Sustained responsive; narrative, Overruled 3 Obj. W/D lacks foundation, vague as 4 to time; irrelevant more Design W/D prejudicial than probative 5 (Evi. §352) 6 69:10-73:2; non responsive; narrative, 7 lacks foundation, vague as to time; irrelevant, more 8 prejudicial than probative 9 (Evi. §352) 73:3-5 attorney testimony 10 64:22 – 87:5 IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 74:9-74:20; Hearsay; 11 leading 12 74:21-77:25; Irrelevant; 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 narrative, non-responsive; 13 more prejudicial than SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 probative (Evi. §352) (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 78:1-81:21; leading, 15 narrative, overbroad, non- responsive, improper 16 recollection refreshed; hearsay; more prejudicial 17 than probative (Evi. §352) 18 19 Sustained 87:7 – 95:14 Overruled 20 Obj. W/D Design W/D 21 Sustained 95:23 – 98:5 Overruled 22 Obj. W/D Design W/D 23 Sustained 98:11 – 99:15 Overruled 24 Obj. W/D Design W/D 25 Sustained 99:19 – 100:18 Overruled 26 Obj. W/D Design W/D 27 28 -5- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 Sustained 100:25 – 101:3 Overruled 3 Obj. W/D 4 Design W/D Sustained 5 101:5-24 Overruled Obj. W/D 6 Design W/D Sustained 7 102:4-8 Overruled Obj. W/D 8 Design W/D Sustained 9 102:13-18 Overruled Obj. W/D 10 Design W/D IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP Sustained 11 102:20 – 106:10 Overruled Obj. W/D 12 Design W/D 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 Sustained 13 Overruled 108:12-14 SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 Obj. W/D (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 Design W/D Sustained 15 Overruled 108:16 – 113:8 Obj. W/D 16 Design W/D Sustained 17 Overruled 113:11 – 114:13 Obj. W/D 18 Design W/D 19 Sustained 115:8-15 Overruled 20 Obj. W/D Design W/D 21 Sustained 115:19 – 116:12 Overruled 22 Obj. W/D Design W/D 23 Sustained 124:5 – 126:25 Overruled 24 Obj. W/D Design W/D 25 Sustained 128:8-14 Overruled 26 Obj. W/D Design W/D 27 28 -6- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 Sustained 128:25 – 131:25 Overruled 3 Obj. W/D 4 Design W/D Sustained 5 132:7 – 138:23 Overruled Obj. W/D 6 Design W/D Sustained 7 139:2-25 Overruled Obj. W/D 8 Design W/D Sustained 9 140:8 – 141:10 Overruled Obj. W/D 10 Design W/D IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP Sustained 11 141:14 – 142:2 Overruled Obj. W/D 12 Design W/D 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 13 SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 157:15-21; Calls for Sustained speculation; lacks Overruled 3 Obj. W/D foundation 4 Design W/D 157:22-157:5; non 5 responsive; calls for speculation. 6 158:10-13; Call for speculation; lacks 7 foundation; improper 8 expert testimony. 158:14-25 Non- 9 responsive, irrelevant; 10 calls for speculation. IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 159:1-5; lacks foundation, 11 calls for speculation, 12 155:15 – 162:25 improper expert testimony 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 160:6-13 calls for 13 speculation; lacks SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 foundation. (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 161:6-20; lacks 15 foundation, calls for 16 speculation, improper expert testimony 17 162:17-21; asked and 18 answered; assumes facts (see 163:1-10.) 19 162:22-25; lacks foundation, calls for 20 speculation. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 163:21-164:13 lacks Sustained foundation, calls for Overruled 3 Obj. W/D speculation, 4 Design W/D 164:14-18; Compound 5 164:22-165:1 Non- responsive. Lacks 6 163:14 – 165:16 foundation; improper expert testimony 7 165:2-16; Lacks 8 foundation; calls for speculation; improper 9 expert testimony; non- 10 responsive. IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP Lacks foundation; calls Sustained 11 Overruled for speculation; improper expert testimony; non- Obj. W/D 12 165:19 – 166:23 Design W/D 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 responsive. 13 SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 167:2-16; Lacks Sustained foundation; calls for Overruled 3 Obj. W/D speculation; vague as to 4 time and location; Design W/D assumes facts; non- 5 responsive. 6 167:17-168:11; Lacks foundation; calls for 7 speculation; vague as to time and location; 8 assumes facts; improper 9 expert testimony; non- responsive. 10 168:16 – everything after IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 11 “never” – 169:25 Lacks foundation; calls for 12 speculation; vague as to 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 time and location; 13 assumes facts; improper SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 expert testimony; non- (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 responsive. 15 169:8- everything after “they wouldn’t”-170:8 16 Lacks foundation; calls 167:2 – 176:22 17 for speculation; vague as to time and location; 18 assumes facts; improper expert testimony; non- 19 responsive. 20 170:9- “off” 10 – attorney testimony. 21 170:10-16 after “off”; non 22 responsive; calls for speculation; improper 23 expert testimony. 24 170:21 – 25 everything after “absolutely.” non 25 responsive; calls for speculation; lacks 26 foundation; improper expert testimony. 27 171:6-172:16; Non 28 responsive, lacks foundation; improper expert testimony. -10- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 Sustained 177:16 – 182:5 Overruled 3 Obj. W/D 4 Design W/D Sustained 5 182:8-25 Overruled Obj. W/D 6 Design W/D Sustained 7 183:4-10 Overruled Obj. W/D 8 Design W/D Sustained 9 183:14 – 184:11 Overruled Obj. W/D 10 Design W/D IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP Sustained 11 184:14-16 Overruled Obj. W/D 12 Design W/D 1660 SOUT H AM PHL E T T BL VD, SUIT E 300 Sustained 13 Overruled 184:18 SAN MAT E O, CA 94402 Obj. W/D (415) 260-4595 LAW O FF ICES 14 Design W/D Sustained 15 Overruled 184:20 – 187:16 Obj. W/D 16 Design W/D Sustained 17 Overruled 187:23 – 188:4 Obj. W/D 18 Design W/D 19 Sustained 188:14 – 189:5 Overruled 20 Obj. W/D Design W/D 21 Sustained 189:19 – 197:14 Overruled 22 Obj. W/D Design W/D 23 Sustained 197:19 – 200:21 Overruled 24 Obj. W/D Design W/D 25 DESIGNATIONS AS TO COSCO 26 FIRE PROTECTION, 27 INC. 28 -11- MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.’S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PAGE LINE DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CANTLEY TAKEN JUNE 1, 2021 1 Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Objection Response Ruling Designations 2 Sustained 201:9-14 Overruled 3