Preview
1 ANDREW D. CASTRICONE (SBN 154607)
acastricone@grsm.com
2 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
ELECTRONICALLY
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
3 San Francisco, CA 94111 F I L E D
Telephone: 415-986-95900 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 Facsimile: 415-262-3726
04/08/2020
5 Attorneys for Defendants JEFF DACHENHAUS, Clerk of the Court
BY: ERNALYN BURA
MARK NOLAN and DEREK SCHULZE Deputy Clerk
6
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ) CASE NO. CGC-18-566118
INC., a California Corporation, dba ABLE )
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12 BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ) DEFENDANTS JEFF DACHENHAUS,
) MARK NOLAN, AND DEREK
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13 Plaintiff, ) SCHULZE’S OBJECTIONS TO
94111
) EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY
14 vs. ) TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
San Francisco, CA
) TERMINATING SANCTIONS
15 METRO SERVICES GROUP, JEFF )
DACHENHAUS, MARK NOLAN and ) Hearing: April 8, 2020
16 DEREK SCHULZE, ) Time: 8:00 a.m.
) Hon. Kevin Murphy, Ret.
17 Defendants. )
Complaint filed: April 26, 2018
18 Trial Date: TBD
19 Defendants Jeff Dachenhaus, Mark Nolan and Derek Schulze (collectively “the
20 Individual Defendants”), and in addition to their joinder to Defendant Metro Services Group’s
21 objections, respectfully submit the following objections to and move to strike evidence
22 submitted in support of Plaintiff’s reply to the Individual Defendants’ opposition to motion for
23 sanctions.
24 Plaintiff’s reply papers and the supporting declarations of Mr. Chanin and Mr. Crain
25 constitute new evidence that is beyond the permissible scope of reply papers,1 and the
26 Individual Defendants’ respectfully request that declarations and exhibits thereto be stricken
27
1See, e.g. Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 278; American Indian Model Schools v.
28 Oakland Unified School Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 258, 275-276.
-1-
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
1 as they have no opportunity to present any rebuttal evidence or testimony.
2 To the extent the motion to strike is denied, or only granted in part, the Individual
3 Defendants lodge the following evidentiary objections:
4 A. Declaration of Jeffrey R. Chanin
5
6 Material Objected To: Grounds for Objection: Court Ruling:
7 1. Chanin Declaration, Argumentative; Lack of personal Sustained
8 ¶ 2: “Able’s Motion for knowledge; Lacks Foundation Overruled
9 Sanctions is premised on (Evidence Code §§ 402, 403, 702)
10 Defendants’ spoliation
11 of evidence and abuse of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12 the discovery process,
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13
94111
including through
14 Defendants’ continuing
San Francisco, CA
15 violation of multiple
16 discovery orders
17 identified in Able’s
18 opening brief.”
19 2. Chanin Declaration, Argumentative; Lack of personal Sustained
20 ¶2: “because knowledge; Lacks Foundation Overruled
21 Defendants’ oppositions (Evidence Code §§ 402, 403, 702)
22 mischaracterize the
23 substance of those
24 orders, and for the
25 convenience of the
26 Discovery Referee so as
27 not to require moving
28
-2-
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
1
between declarations,
2
Able attaches true and
3
correct copies of the
4
relevant orders hereto”
5
3. Chanin Declaration, Relevance; Hearsay (Evidence Code Sustained
6
¶3. §§ 250, 1200) Overruled
7
4. Chanin Declaration, Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
8
¶ 4 and Exhibit 2 Foundation; Argumentative; Hearsay Overruled
9
(Evidence Code §§ 402, 403, 702,
10
800, 801, 1200)
11
5. Chanin Declaration, Lacks Foundation; Argumentative; Sustained
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12
¶ 5 and Exhibit 3 Hearsay (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13
94111
403, 1200)
14
San Francisco, CA
6. Chanin Declaration, Lacks Foundation; Argumentative, Sustained
15
¶ 6 and Exhibit 4 Hearsay (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled
16
403, 1200)
17
7. Chanin Declaration, Lacks Foundation; Argumentative; Sustained
18
¶ 7 and Exhibit 5 Hearsay (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled
19
403, 1200)
20
8. Chanin Declaration, Argumentative; Hearsay (Evidence Sustained
21
¶ 8 and Exhibit 6 Code §§ 402, 403 1200) Overruled
22
23
9. Chanin Declaration, Argumentative, Hearsay (Evidence Sustained
24
¶ 9 and Exhibit 7 Code §§ 402, 1200) Overruled
25
26
10. Chanin Lacks Foundation; Relevance; Sustained
27
Declaration, ¶10 and Argumentative; Hearsay (Evidence Overruled
28
-3-
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
1
Exhibit 8 Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 1200);
2
3
11. Chanin Argumentative; Lack of personal Sustained
4
Declaration, ¶11 knowledge; Lacks Foundation; Overruled
5
Relevance; Improper expert opinion;
6
Hearsay (Evidence Code §§ 250,
7
402, 403, 702, 800, 801, 1200);
8
12. Chanin Lacks Foundation; Relevance; Sustained
9
Declaration, ¶12 and Hearsay; and Mischaracterization of Overruled
10
Exhibit 9 evidence (Evidence Code §§ 250,
11
402, 403, 702, 800, 801, 1200);
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12
13. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13
94111
Declaration, ¶13 Foundation; Argumentative; Overruled
14
San Francisco, CA
Relevance (Evidence Code §§ 250,
15
402, 403, 702, 800, 801);
16
14. Chanin Argumentative; Hearsay (Evidence Sustained
17
Declaration, ¶14 and Code §§ 402, 403, 1200) Overruled
18
Exhibit 10
19
20
15. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Sustained
21
Declaration, ¶15 and Argumentative; Lacks Foundation; Overruled
22
Exhibit 11 Relevance; Improper Expert
23
Opinion; Hearsay (Evidence Code
24
§§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800, 801,
25
1200);
26
16. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
27
Declaration, ¶16 and Foundation; Relevance; Improper Overruled
28
-4-
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
1
Exhibit 12 Expert Opinion; Hearsay (Evidence
2
Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800,
3
801, 1200);
4
17. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
5
Declaration, ¶17 and Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled
6
Exhibit 13 (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403,
7
702, 1200);
8
18. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
9
Declaration, ¶18 and Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled
10
Exhibit 14 (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403,
11
702, 1200);
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12
19. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13
94111
Declaration, ¶19 and Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay; Overruled
14
San Francisco, CA
Exhibit 15 Argumentative (Evidence Code §§
15
250, 402, 403, 702, 800, 801, 1200);
16
20. Chanin Relevance; Hearsay (Evidence Code Sustained
17
Declaration, ¶16 and §§ 250, 1200); Overruled
18
Exhibits (a)-(c)
19
20
21. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
21
Declaration, ¶¶21-27 Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled
22
and Exhibits 17-23 (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403,
23
702, 800, 801, 1200);
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
1 B. Second Supplemental Declaration of Andrew Crain
2
3 Material Objected To: Grounds for Objection: Court Ruling:
4 1. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
5 3: “described devices Foundation (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled
6 used by Defendant Jeff 403, 702, 800, 801)
7 Dachenhaus
8 (“Dachenhaus”),
9 Defendant Mark Nolan
10 (“Nolan”), or Defendant
11 Derek Schulze
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12 (“Schulze”; collectively,
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13
94111
with Dachenhaus
14 and Nolan, “Individual
San Francisco, CA
15 Defendants”) while the
16 Individual Defendants
17 were employees of
18 Able.”
19 2. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
20 3: “That declaration also Foundation (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled
21 described some forensic 403, 702, 800, 801)
22 investigation performed
23 by me and my team with
24 respect to those Able-
25 issued devices.”
26
3. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
27
4: “My Supplemental Foundation (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled
28
-6-
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
1
Declaration described 403, 702, 800, 801)
2
data received from
3
Defendants since my
4
earlier declaration and
5
offered my opinions
6
regarding the need for
7
prompt preservation of
8
digital evidence.”
9
4. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
10
7 and subparts (a)-(g), Foundation; Relevance (Evidence Overruled
11
in their entirety. Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12
801);
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13
94111
5. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
14
San Francisco, CA
8 Foundation; Relevance (Evidence Overruled
15
Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800,
16
801);
17
6. Crain Declaration, ¶ Hearsay (Evidence Code §1200); Sustained
18
9 and Exhibit A Overruled
19
20
7. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
21
10, Exhibit B, and Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled
22
Exhibit C (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403,
23
702, 800, 801, 1200);
24
8. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
25
11 Foundation; Relevance; (Evidence Overruled
26
Code §§ 250, 402, 702, 800, 801);
27
9. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
28
-7-
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
1
13: Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled
2
“BRG received forensic (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403,
3
images and original 702, 800, 801, 1200);
4
devices from Able’s
5
former forensic service
6
provider, Kivu, which I
7
am informed and believe
8
was authorized by
9
Mr. Adam Houdashell of
10
Able”
11
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12
10. Crain Declaration, Lack of personal knowledge; Sustained
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13
94111
¶¶ 14-21 Argumentative; Lacks Foundation; Overruled
14
San Francisco, CA
Relevance; Hearsay (Evidence Code
15
§§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800, 801,
16
1200);
17
11. Crain Declaration, Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained
18
¶¶ 23-31 Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled
19
(Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403,
20
702, 800, 801, 1200);
21
Respectfully submitted,
22
Dated: April 7, 2020 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
23
24
25 By
Andrew D. Castricone
26 Attorneys for Defendants JEFF DACHENHAUS,
MARK NOLAN and DEREK SCHULZE
27
28
-8-
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
Preview
1 ANDREW D. CASTRICONE (SBN 154607) acastricone@grsm.com 2 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP ELECTRONICALLY 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 F I L E D Telephone: 415-986-95900 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 Facsimile: 415-262-3726 04/08/2020 5 Attorneys for Defendants JEFF DACHENHAUS, Clerk of the Court BY: ERNALYN BURA MARK NOLAN and DEREK SCHULZE Deputy Clerk 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ) CASE NO. CGC-18-566118 INC., a California Corporation, dba ABLE ) Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 12 BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ) DEFENDANTS JEFF DACHENHAUS, ) MARK NOLAN, AND DEREK 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 13 Plaintiff, ) SCHULZE’S OBJECTIONS TO 94111 ) EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY 14 vs. ) TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR San Francisco, CA ) TERMINATING SANCTIONS 15 METRO SERVICES GROUP, JEFF ) DACHENHAUS, MARK NOLAN and ) Hearing: April 8, 2020 16 DEREK SCHULZE, ) Time: 8:00 a.m. ) Hon. Kevin Murphy, Ret. 17 Defendants. ) Complaint filed: April 26, 2018 18 Trial Date: TBD 19 Defendants Jeff Dachenhaus, Mark Nolan and Derek Schulze (collectively “the 20 Individual Defendants”), and in addition to their joinder to Defendant Metro Services Group’s 21 objections, respectfully submit the following objections to and move to strike evidence 22 submitted in support of Plaintiff’s reply to the Individual Defendants’ opposition to motion for 23 sanctions. 24 Plaintiff’s reply papers and the supporting declarations of Mr. Chanin and Mr. Crain 25 constitute new evidence that is beyond the permissible scope of reply papers,1 and the 26 Individual Defendants’ respectfully request that declarations and exhibits thereto be stricken 27 1See, e.g. Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 278; American Indian Model Schools v. 28 Oakland Unified School Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 258, 275-276. -1- OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1 as they have no opportunity to present any rebuttal evidence or testimony. 2 To the extent the motion to strike is denied, or only granted in part, the Individual 3 Defendants lodge the following evidentiary objections: 4 A. Declaration of Jeffrey R. Chanin 5 6 Material Objected To: Grounds for Objection: Court Ruling: 7 1. Chanin Declaration, Argumentative; Lack of personal Sustained 8 ¶ 2: “Able’s Motion for knowledge; Lacks Foundation Overruled 9 Sanctions is premised on (Evidence Code §§ 402, 403, 702) 10 Defendants’ spoliation 11 of evidence and abuse of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 12 the discovery process, 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 13 94111 including through 14 Defendants’ continuing San Francisco, CA 15 violation of multiple 16 discovery orders 17 identified in Able’s 18 opening brief.” 19 2. Chanin Declaration, Argumentative; Lack of personal Sustained 20 ¶2: “because knowledge; Lacks Foundation Overruled 21 Defendants’ oppositions (Evidence Code §§ 402, 403, 702) 22 mischaracterize the 23 substance of those 24 orders, and for the 25 convenience of the 26 Discovery Referee so as 27 not to require moving 28 -2- OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1 between declarations, 2 Able attaches true and 3 correct copies of the 4 relevant orders hereto” 5 3. Chanin Declaration, Relevance; Hearsay (Evidence Code Sustained 6 ¶3. §§ 250, 1200) Overruled 7 4. Chanin Declaration, Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 8 ¶ 4 and Exhibit 2 Foundation; Argumentative; Hearsay Overruled 9 (Evidence Code §§ 402, 403, 702, 10 800, 801, 1200) 11 5. Chanin Declaration, Lacks Foundation; Argumentative; Sustained Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 12 ¶ 5 and Exhibit 3 Hearsay (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 13 94111 403, 1200) 14 San Francisco, CA 6. Chanin Declaration, Lacks Foundation; Argumentative, Sustained 15 ¶ 6 and Exhibit 4 Hearsay (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled 16 403, 1200) 17 7. Chanin Declaration, Lacks Foundation; Argumentative; Sustained 18 ¶ 7 and Exhibit 5 Hearsay (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled 19 403, 1200) 20 8. Chanin Declaration, Argumentative; Hearsay (Evidence Sustained 21 ¶ 8 and Exhibit 6 Code §§ 402, 403 1200) Overruled 22 23 9. Chanin Declaration, Argumentative, Hearsay (Evidence Sustained 24 ¶ 9 and Exhibit 7 Code §§ 402, 1200) Overruled 25 26 10. Chanin Lacks Foundation; Relevance; Sustained 27 Declaration, ¶10 and Argumentative; Hearsay (Evidence Overruled 28 -3- OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1 Exhibit 8 Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 1200); 2 3 11. Chanin Argumentative; Lack of personal Sustained 4 Declaration, ¶11 knowledge; Lacks Foundation; Overruled 5 Relevance; Improper expert opinion; 6 Hearsay (Evidence Code §§ 250, 7 402, 403, 702, 800, 801, 1200); 8 12. Chanin Lacks Foundation; Relevance; Sustained 9 Declaration, ¶12 and Hearsay; and Mischaracterization of Overruled 10 Exhibit 9 evidence (Evidence Code §§ 250, 11 402, 403, 702, 800, 801, 1200); Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 12 13. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 13 94111 Declaration, ¶13 Foundation; Argumentative; Overruled 14 San Francisco, CA Relevance (Evidence Code §§ 250, 15 402, 403, 702, 800, 801); 16 14. Chanin Argumentative; Hearsay (Evidence Sustained 17 Declaration, ¶14 and Code §§ 402, 403, 1200) Overruled 18 Exhibit 10 19 20 15. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Sustained 21 Declaration, ¶15 and Argumentative; Lacks Foundation; Overruled 22 Exhibit 11 Relevance; Improper Expert 23 Opinion; Hearsay (Evidence Code 24 §§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800, 801, 25 1200); 26 16. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 27 Declaration, ¶16 and Foundation; Relevance; Improper Overruled 28 -4- OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1 Exhibit 12 Expert Opinion; Hearsay (Evidence 2 Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800, 3 801, 1200); 4 17. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 5 Declaration, ¶17 and Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled 6 Exhibit 13 (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 7 702, 1200); 8 18. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 9 Declaration, ¶18 and Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled 10 Exhibit 14 (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 11 702, 1200); Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 12 19. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 13 94111 Declaration, ¶19 and Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay; Overruled 14 San Francisco, CA Exhibit 15 Argumentative (Evidence Code §§ 15 250, 402, 403, 702, 800, 801, 1200); 16 20. Chanin Relevance; Hearsay (Evidence Code Sustained 17 Declaration, ¶16 and §§ 250, 1200); Overruled 18 Exhibits (a)-(c) 19 20 21. Chanin Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 21 Declaration, ¶¶21-27 Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled 22 and Exhibits 17-23 (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 23 702, 800, 801, 1200); 24 25 26 27 28 -5- OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1 B. Second Supplemental Declaration of Andrew Crain 2 3 Material Objected To: Grounds for Objection: Court Ruling: 4 1. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 5 3: “described devices Foundation (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled 6 used by Defendant Jeff 403, 702, 800, 801) 7 Dachenhaus 8 (“Dachenhaus”), 9 Defendant Mark Nolan 10 (“Nolan”), or Defendant 11 Derek Schulze Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 12 (“Schulze”; collectively, 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 13 94111 with Dachenhaus 14 and Nolan, “Individual San Francisco, CA 15 Defendants”) while the 16 Individual Defendants 17 were employees of 18 Able.” 19 2. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 20 3: “That declaration also Foundation (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled 21 described some forensic 403, 702, 800, 801) 22 investigation performed 23 by me and my team with 24 respect to those Able- 25 issued devices.” 26 3. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 27 4: “My Supplemental Foundation (Evidence Code §§ 402, Overruled 28 -6- OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1 Declaration described 403, 702, 800, 801) 2 data received from 3 Defendants since my 4 earlier declaration and 5 offered my opinions 6 regarding the need for 7 prompt preservation of 8 digital evidence.” 9 4. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 10 7 and subparts (a)-(g), Foundation; Relevance (Evidence Overruled 11 in their entirety. Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 12 801); 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 13 94111 5. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 14 San Francisco, CA 8 Foundation; Relevance (Evidence Overruled 15 Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800, 16 801); 17 6. Crain Declaration, ¶ Hearsay (Evidence Code §1200); Sustained 18 9 and Exhibit A Overruled 19 20 7. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 21 10, Exhibit B, and Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled 22 Exhibit C (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 23 702, 800, 801, 1200); 24 8. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 25 11 Foundation; Relevance; (Evidence Overruled 26 Code §§ 250, 402, 702, 800, 801); 27 9. Crain Declaration, ¶ Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 28 -7- OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1 13: Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled 2 “BRG received forensic (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 3 images and original 702, 800, 801, 1200); 4 devices from Able’s 5 former forensic service 6 provider, Kivu, which I 7 am informed and believe 8 was authorized by 9 Mr. Adam Houdashell of 10 Able” 11 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 12 10. Crain Declaration, Lack of personal knowledge; Sustained 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 13 94111 ¶¶ 14-21 Argumentative; Lacks Foundation; Overruled 14 San Francisco, CA Relevance; Hearsay (Evidence Code 15 §§ 250, 402, 403, 702, 800, 801, 16 1200); 17 11. Crain Declaration, Lack of personal knowledge; Lacks Sustained 18 ¶¶ 23-31 Foundation; Relevance; Hearsay Overruled 19 (Evidence Code §§ 250, 402, 403, 20 702, 800, 801, 1200); 21 Respectfully submitted, 22 Dated: April 7, 2020 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 23 24 25 By Andrew D. Castricone 26 Attorneys for Defendants JEFF DACHENHAUS, MARK NOLAN and DEREK SCHULZE 27 28 -8- OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE