arrow left
arrow right
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

oem NY KD he BY

10

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436

JAMIE A. NEWBOLD, ESQ., S.B. #207186 ELECTRONICALLY
BRAYTON&PURCELL LLP
Attorneys at Law sopehr IL EDP
5 Rush Fanding Road County of San Francisco ‘
Novato, California 94948-6169 APR 25 2013
(415) 898-1555 Clerk of the Court
Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestasTR@braytonlaw,com BY: ALISON AGBAY

Deputy Clerk

Attomeys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ASBESTOS
No. CGC-10-275731

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS,

Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION

vs.

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS;
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit |
attached to the Summary Complaint

herein; and DOES 1-8500.

eee

Date: May 9, 2013

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Trial Date: June 10, 2013

Action Filed: December 17, 2010

Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to rule on plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections in
accordance with Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1352 and 3.1354, Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010)
50 Cal.4th 512, Vineyard Springs Estates, LLC v. Super. Ct. (Wyatt) (2004) 120 Cal_App.4th

633, 635; Sambrano v. City of San Diego (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 225, 235; Laird v. Capital

Cities/ABC, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal_App.4th 727, 736, and Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide:
Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2005) 4 10:301.1, ch. 10-F.

Ail

Ht

uit

K.Ninjunah 08-9) Cuvid-obj-KOHCON. ped 1 JAN
PLAINTIFFS” EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Plaintiffs object to and move to strike, defendant’s proffered evidence as follows:

1. Plaintiffs object to, and move to strike, the Declaration of Howard Spielman
in its entirety attached as Exhibit G to the Declaration fo Paul S. Lecky.

Material Objected To:

1. Spielman Declaration in its entirety.

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 1:

Dated:

Grounds for Objection:

1. The declaration lacks foundation, is based
upon speculation and hearsay, is irrelevant
and therefore inadmissible. (Evid. Code

$§ 210, 350, 403, 405, 702, 1200-1205.)

Spielman’s opinions regarding the potential
authenticity of The Asbestos Worker
journais lack foundation, are based upon
speculation and hearsay and are therefore
irrelevant and inadmissible.

No foundation has been offered to show that
Spielman is capable of authenticating any
volumes of The Ashestos Worker journals,
let alone those at issue here.

Further, in reliance on Mr. Steele’s
deposition testimony, Spielman fails to
indicate when Mr. Steele joined the union
so as to have foundation to testify regarding
the authenticity of any issues of The
Asbestos Worker. Thus, any opinions that
Mr. Steele may have about the union or its
members prior to him joining the union are
lacking in foundation, speculative, irrelevant
and therefore inadmissible.

Sustained:

Overruled:

2. Plaintiffs object to, and move to strike, the Declaration of Howard
Spielman, paragraph 11, p. 5:10-20.

Material Objected To:

2. Spielman Decl., paragraph 11, p. 5:10-
20, which states as follows:

“T have reviewed the above twenty-two (22)
issues of The Asbestos Worker that were
produced at the deposition of Mr. Steele,
and have compared them to my retained set
of The Asbestos Worker journals from the
International association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union.

K.Ninjunah 08-9) Cuvid-obj-KOHCON. ped 2

Grounds for Objection:

2. The declaration lacks foundation, is based
upon. speculation and hearsay, is irrelevant
and therefore inadmissible. (Evid. Code

§§ 210, 350, 403, 405, 702, 1200-1205.)

No foundation has been offered to show that
Spielman is capable of authenticating any
volumes of The Asbestos Worker journals,
let alone those at issue here. This statement
lacks foundation, is based upon speculation

JAN

PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEPENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.“S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

All of the issues of The Asbestos Worker
that were produced at Mr. Steele’s
deposition have the same format and.
categories as The asbestos Worker journals
from the International Association of Heat
& Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers
Union that I possess. Based on the
appearance and contents of the journals
produced at Mr. Steele’s deposition, and
when compared to my set of Journals, there
is no reason to doubt that the twenty-two
(22) issues of The Asbestos Worker journals
produced at Mr. Steele’s deposition are true
and correct copies of The Asbestos Worker,
the official journal of the International
Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and
Asbestos Workers Union.”

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 2:

Dated:

and hearsay (Steve Steele’s deposition - see
objection No. 1 above), and is therefore
irrelevant and inadmissible.

Further, in reliance on Mr. Steele’s
deposition testimony, Spielman fails to
indicate when Mr. Steele joined the union
so as to have foundation to testify regarding
the authenticity of any issues of The
Asbestos Worker, Thus, any opinions that
Mr. Steele may have about the union or its
members prior to him joining the union are
lacking in foundation, speculative, irrelevant
and therefore inadmissible.

Sustained:

Overruled:

3. Plaintiffs object to, and move to strike, the Declaration of Howard
Spielman, paragraph 12 in its entirety, p. 5:21-26.

Material Objected To:

3. Spielman Decl., paragraph 12, p. 5:21-26
which states as follows:

“Tt is therefore my opinion, that all twenty-
two (22) issues of The Asbestos Worker
journals produced and attached as Exhibits
E1-E11 and F-P to the deposition of Steve
Steele, Volume I, on August 21, 2009, are
true and correct copies of the official
journal of the International Association of
Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos
Workers Union, The Asbestos Worker.”

dif

K:Ainjureds F920 pldiovid-obj-OHCONawpe

Grounds for Objection:

3. The declaration lacks foundation, is based
upon speculation and hearsay, is irrelevant
and therefore inadmissible. (Evid. Code

§$§ 210, 350, 403, 405, 702, 1200-1205.)

No foundation has been offered to show that
Spielman is capable of authenticating any
volumes of The Asbestos Worker journals,
let alone those at issue here. This statement
lacks foundation, is based upon speculation
and hearsay and is therefore irrelevant and
inadmissible.

Further, in reliance on Mr. Steele’s
deposition testimony, Spielman fails to
indicate when Mr. Steele joined the union

so as to have foundation to testify regarding
the authenticity of any issues of The
Asbestos Worker. Thus, any opinions that
Mr. Steele may have about the union or its
members prior to him joining the union are
lacking in foundation, speculative, urelevant
and therefore inadmissible.

JAN

PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEPENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.“S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION NO, 3:

Dated: Sustained:
Overruled:
4, Plaintiffs object to, and move to strike, the Declaration of Howard
Spielman, paragraph 13 in its entirety, and corresponding exhibits.
Material Objected To: Grounds for Objection:
4, Spielman Decl., paragraph 13, which 4. The declaration lacks foundation, is
states as follows: based upon speculation and hearsay, is
irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
“Tt is further my opinion, absent evidence to (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350, 403, 405, 702,
the contrary, and based on my training, 1200-1205.)
experience, review and comparison of the
aforementioned, that, specifically: No foundation has been offered to show that
Spielman is capable of authenticating any
(A) The Asbestos Worker, April 1957 volumes of The Asbestos Worker journals,
produced at the deposition of Steve Steele let alone those at issue here. This statement
on August 21, 2009 and attached thereto as lacks foundation, is based upon speculation
Exhibit M, is a true and correct copy of the and hearsay and is therefore irrelevant and
April 1957 official journal of the inadmissible.
International Association of Heat & Frost
insulators and Asbestos Workers Union, Further, in reliance on Mr. Steele’s
The Asbestos Worker (attached hereto as deposition testimony, Spielman fails to
Exhibit 1); indicate when Mr. Steele joined the union
so as to have foundation to testify regarding
(B) The Asbestos Worker, October 1957 the authenticity of any issues of The
produced at the deposition of Steve Steele Asbestos Worker, Thus, any opinions that
on August 21, 2009 and attached thereto as Mr. Steele may have about the union or its
Exhibit G, is a true and correct copy of the members prior to him joining the union are
October 1957 official journal of the lacking in foundation, speculative, irrelevant
International. Association of Heat & Frost and therefore inadmissible.
insulators and Asbestos Workers Union,
The Asbestos Worker (attached hereto as
Exhibit 2);
(C) The Asbestos Worker, April 1958
roduced at the deposition of Steve Steele
on August 21, 2009 and attached thereto as
Exhibit P, is a true and correct copy of the

April 1958 official journal of the
International Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union,
The Asbestos Worker (attached hereto as
Exhibit 3):

(D) The Asbestos Worker, May 1959
produced at the deposition of Steve Steele
on August 21, 2009 and attached thereto as
Exhibit N, is a true and correct copy of the
May 1959 official journal of the

=

K.Ninjunah 08-9) Cuvid-obj-KOHCON. ped 4 JAN
PLAINTIFFS” EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

International Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union,
The Asbestos Worker (attached hereto as
Exhibit 4);

(E) The Asbestos Worker, November 1961
produced at the deposition of Steve Steele
on August 21, 2009 and attached thereto as
Exhibit H, is a true and correct copy of the
November 1961 official journal of the
International Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union,
The Asbestos Worker (attached hereto as
Exhibit 5);

(F) The Asbestos Worker, February 1963
luced at the deposition of Steve Steele
on August 21, 2009 and attached thereto as
Exhibit I, is a true and correct copy of the
February 1963 official journal of the
International Association of Heat & Frost
insulators and Asbestos Workers Union,
The Asbestos Worker (attached hereto as
Exhibit 6);

3
&

(G) The Asbestos Worker, February 1964
produced at the deposition of Steve Steele
on August 21, 2009 and attached thereto as
Exhibit J, is a true and correct copy of the
February 1964 official journal of the
International Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union,
The Ashestos Worker (attached hereto as
Exhibit 7);

(H) The Asbestos Worker, November 1964
produced at the deposition of Steve Steele
on August 21, 2009 and attached thereto as
Exhibit K, is a true and correct copy of the
ovember 1964 official journal of the
International. Association of Heat & Frost
insulators and Asbestos Workers Union,
The Asbestos Worker (attached hereto as
Exhibit 8);

(D) The Asbestos Worker, August 1965
produced at the deposition of Steve Steele
on August 21, 2009 and attached thereto as
Exhibit O, is a true and correct copy of the
August 1965 official journal of the
International Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers Union,
The Asbestos Worker (attached hereto as
Exhibit 9):”

K.Ninjunah 08-9) Cuvid-obj-KOHCON. ped 3 JAN
PLAINTIFFS” EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION NO, 4:

Dated: Sustained:
Overruled:
5. Plaintiffs object to, and move to strike, Exhibits 1-9 to the Declaration of
Howard Spielman.
Material Objected To: Grounds for Objection:
5. Spielman Decl., Exhibits 1-9 5. Exhibits 1-9 are purportedly “true and

correct copies” of The Asbestos Worker
journals. However, the documents have not
been properly authenticated, and are
therefore inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code
§§ 210, 350, 403, 405, 702, 1200-1205.)

No foundation has been offered to show that
Spielman is capable of authenticating any
volumes of The Ashestos Worker journals,
let alone those at issue here.

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 5:

Dated: Sustained:

Overruled:

6. Plaintiffs object to, and move to strike, the deposition transcripts of Mr.
Steve Steele, Exhibit H to the Lecky Declaration served concurrently with
defendant’s moving papers.

Material Objected To: Grounds for Objection:
6. Deposition of Steve Steele in its entirety. 6. This deposition was taken in a matter

other than this case. The witness has not
been shown to be unavailable. Therefore
the testimony is inadmissible hearsay,
offered without exception.

Further, Mr. Steele testified in his
deposition that he did not joint the union
until 1972, so any opinions that he may have
about the union or its members prior to

1972 are lacking in foundation, speculative,
irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. (See
defense Exhibit H, p. 19:1-3).

dif
Mit
dif

K.Ninjunah 08-9) Cuvid-obj-KOHCON. ped 6 JAN
PLAINTIFFS” EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 6:

Dated: Sustained:
Overruled:
Dated: 4/25/13 BRAY TON*PURCELL LLP

By: /s/ Jamie A. Newbold
Jamie AV Newbold
Attormeys for Plaintiffs

K.Ninjunah 08-9) Cuvid-obj-KOHCON. ped 7 JAN
PLAINTIFFS” EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION