Preview
OOO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Mar-16-2012 301 pm
Case Number: CGC-10-498405 |
Filing Date: Mar-16-2012 3:01
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03538519
GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)
PERFORMING ARTS LLC, VS. KILLARNEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. et a!
001003538519
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley
A Professional Corporation
San Francisco,
JOHN G. DOOLING (SBN 154358) ves
DEVIN C. COURTEAU (SBN 197505) MAR Ta 2512
ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY
201 Spear Street, Suite 1000 , SETHE oy
San Francisco, CA 94105-1667 Bie EP QUE
Telephone: — (415) 543-4800 fe
Facsimile: (415) 972-6301
Email: jdooling@rmkb.com
deourteau@rmkb.com
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PERFORMING ARTS, LLC, CASE NO. CGC-10-498405
Plaintiff, CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES,
INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
v. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN
KILLARNEY CONSTRUCTION CO.. SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
INC., JUDGMENT
Defendant. Date : March 23, 2012
Time 2 9:30 a.m.
Dept. : 302
Honorable Harold FE. Kahn
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. Trial Date: September 24, 2012
RC 116384679, DCC -1-
CONSTRUCTION SES. INC.°S RESPONSES FO PLAIN [IFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE,
SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTRopers Majeski Kohn & Bentley
A Professional Corperation
San Francesco,
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1354, defendant and cross-complainant
Construction Testing Services, Inc. (‘CTS”) hereby submits the following Responses to the
Objections to Evidence filed by plaintiff Performing Arts, LCC (“Plaintiff”) in Opposition to the
Motion for Summary Judgment herein (the “Opposition”):
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DEVIN COURTEAU
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. f
Plaintiff objects the reference to the "Loan Purchase Agreement” in the Courteau
Declaration filed in support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the
testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge.
First, as to authentication, the very same document has been submitted to support
Plaintiff's Opposition and was in fact produced in the course of discovery. Second, as to its
contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of
the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the
document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code §1271 re business records
exception and the Cassidy Declaration, Ex. 4.)
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 2
Plaintiff objects the reference to the "Deed of Trust” in the Courtcau Declaration filed in
support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks
foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge.
First, as to authentication, the very same document has been submitted to support
Plaintiff's Opposition and was in fact produced in the course of discovery. Second, as to its
contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of
the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the
document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code §1271 re business records
exception and the Cassidy Declaration, Ex. 3.)
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 3
Plaintiff objects a reference to defendant “Mike Murray” and a letter attached to the
Courteau Declaration filed in support of CT'S’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds
RCV6384679.1DCC, -2-
CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES. INC'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFE'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.Ropers Majeski Kohn & Benttey
A Professional Corporation
San Francisco
CoC Mm ND
10
11
that the testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal
knowledge.
First, as to authentication, the very same document to which this reference pertains was
produced in the course of discovery by Plaintiff. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks
for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither
disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and
correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code $1271 re business records exception.) Finally, while the
document in question is cited once in CTS’s statement of undisputed Material Facts, the
undisputed material fact in question is supported by other, independent evidence.
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 4
Plaintiff objects the reference to a letter attached to the Courteau Declaration filed in
support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks
foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge.
First, as to authentication, the very same document was produced in the course of
discovery by Plaintiff. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau
merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is
contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal.
Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception.)
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 5
Plaintiff objects the reference to a letter attached to the Courteau Declaration filed in
support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks
foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge.
First, as to authentication, the very same document was produced in the course of
discovery by Plaintiff. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itscll. Mr. Courteau
merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is
contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correet copy. (See also Cal.
Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception.)
RCV6384679.1/0CC, -3-
CONSTRUCTION TESTING VICES. INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE,
SUBMITTED BY DL IDANTS JN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTRopers Majeski Kohn & Bentley
A Professional Corporation
San Francisco.
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 6
Plaintiff objects the reference to the Centrix Builders, Inc. bid agreement relating to 973
market Street in the Courteau Declaration filed in support of CTS’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr.
Courteau’s personal knowledge.
First, as to authentication, this document was produced in the course of discovery by
Plaintiff, and Joe Cassidy admits in his declaration that Centrix was retained by 973 Market to
prepare just such a bid. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau
merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is
contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal.
Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception and the Cassidy Declaration, 7.)
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 7
Plaintiff objects the reference to the Trustee’s Deed, pursuant to which Plaintiff took the
property at issue after a trustee sale, attached to the Courteau Declaration filed in support of
CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks foundation and
calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge.
First, as to authentication, the very same document has been submitted to support
Plaintiff's Opposition and was in fact produced in the course of discovery. Second, as to its
contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of
the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the
document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code $1271 re business records
exception and the Cassidy Declaration, Ex. 7.)
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 8
Plaintiff objects the reference to the guarantees, acquire dby Plaintiff as part of the loan
purchase, attached to Exhibit M to the Courteau Declaration filed in support of CTS*s Motion for
Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony Jacks foundation and calls for speculation
beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge.
First, as to authentication, the very same documents have been submitted to this Court by
RC1/6381679.1/DCC -4-
TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
SUMMARY JLIDGMENT
CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC.?S RESPON:
SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT €Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley
A Professional Corporation
San Francisco
n vw &
20
1 Plaintiff in a different action seeking to enforce those guarantees. Second, as to their contents, the
documents speaks for themselves. Mr. Courteau merely points out their existence; Plaintiff
neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true
and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception.)
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 9
Plaintiff objects to statements relating to the scope and extent of CTS’s work at the
property at issue, set forth in the declaration of James Doyle, on the grounds that the statements
allegedly lack foundation, are speculative, are hearsay, and pursuant to the best evidence rule.
Such objections are baseless. Mr. Doyle is a CTS Project Manager whose duties are to
review the invoices for CTS projects on a monthly basis, based on the contractual rates, amounts
and dates of service. As such, his statements regarding that work do not lack foundation, and are
not speculative and hearsay because they are based on business records and his personal
knowledge. Plaintiff's evidence regarding the best evidence rule assumes, without any evidence
in support, that CTS had a written contract.
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 10
Plaintiff objects to statements relating to the frequency of CTS employees presence at the
property at issue, set forth in the declaration of James Doyle, on the grounds that the statements
allegedly lack foundation and are hearsay.
Such objections are baseless. Mr. Doyle is a CTS Project Manager whose duties are to
review the invoices for CTS projects on a monthly basis, based on the contractual rates, amounts
and dates of service. As such. his statements regarding that work do not lack foundation, and are
not hearsay because they are based on business records and his personal knowledge.
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 11
Plaintiff objects to statements relating to the frequency of CTS employees presence at the
property at issue, set forth in the declaration of James Doyle. on the grounds that the statements
allegedly lack foundation, are speculative, and are hearsay.
Such objections are baseless. Mr. Doyle is a CTS Project Manager whose duties are to
review the invoices for CTS projects on a monthly basis, based on the contractual rates, amounts
RO16384679.1/DCC -5-
CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTRopers Majeski Kohn & Bentley
A Professional Corporation
San Francisca
te
and dates of service. As such, his statements regarding that work do not lack foundation, and are
not speculative and hearsay because they are based on business records and his personal
knowledge.
RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 12
Plaintiff objects to statements relating to the frequency of CTS employees presence at the
property at issue, set forth in the declaration of James Doyle, on the grounds that the statements
allegedly lack foundation, are speculative, and are hearsay.
Such objections are baseless. Mr. Doyle is a CTS Project Manager whose duties are to
review the invoices for CTS projects on a monthly basis, based on the contractual rates, amounts
and dates of service. As such, his statements regarding that work, and especially when it began
and ended, do not lack foundation, and are not speculative and hearsay because they are based on
business records and his personal knowledge.
Dated: March 16, 2012 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY
By: TO See
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-
Complainant
CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES,
INC.
RE16384679 DCC -6-
CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDI NCE
SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Preview
OOO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-16-2012 301 pm Case Number: CGC-10-498405 | Filing Date: Mar-16-2012 3:01 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03538519 GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE) PERFORMING ARTS LLC, VS. KILLARNEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. et a! 001003538519 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley A Professional Corporation San Francisco, JOHN G. DOOLING (SBN 154358) ves DEVIN C. COURTEAU (SBN 197505) MAR Ta 2512 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 201 Spear Street, Suite 1000 , SETHE oy San Francisco, CA 94105-1667 Bie EP QUE Telephone: — (415) 543-4800 fe Facsimile: (415) 972-6301 Email: jdooling@rmkb.com deourteau@rmkb.com Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PERFORMING ARTS, LLC, CASE NO. CGC-10-498405 Plaintiff, CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S v. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN KILLARNEY CONSTRUCTION CO.. SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY INC., JUDGMENT Defendant. Date : March 23, 2012 Time 2 9:30 a.m. Dept. : 302 Honorable Harold FE. Kahn AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. Trial Date: September 24, 2012 RC 116384679, DCC -1- CONSTRUCTION SES. INC.°S RESPONSES FO PLAIN [IFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTRopers Majeski Kohn & Bentley A Professional Corperation San Francesco, Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1354, defendant and cross-complainant Construction Testing Services, Inc. (‘CTS”) hereby submits the following Responses to the Objections to Evidence filed by plaintiff Performing Arts, LCC (“Plaintiff”) in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment herein (the “Opposition”): PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DEVIN COURTEAU RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. f Plaintiff objects the reference to the "Loan Purchase Agreement” in the Courteau Declaration filed in support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge. First, as to authentication, the very same document has been submitted to support Plaintiff's Opposition and was in fact produced in the course of discovery. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception and the Cassidy Declaration, Ex. 4.) RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 2 Plaintiff objects the reference to the "Deed of Trust” in the Courtcau Declaration filed in support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge. First, as to authentication, the very same document has been submitted to support Plaintiff's Opposition and was in fact produced in the course of discovery. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception and the Cassidy Declaration, Ex. 3.) RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 3 Plaintiff objects a reference to defendant “Mike Murray” and a letter attached to the Courteau Declaration filed in support of CT'S’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds RCV6384679.1DCC, -2- CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES. INC'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFE'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.Ropers Majeski Kohn & Benttey A Professional Corporation San Francisco CoC Mm ND 10 11 that the testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge. First, as to authentication, the very same document to which this reference pertains was produced in the course of discovery by Plaintiff. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code $1271 re business records exception.) Finally, while the document in question is cited once in CTS’s statement of undisputed Material Facts, the undisputed material fact in question is supported by other, independent evidence. RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 4 Plaintiff objects the reference to a letter attached to the Courteau Declaration filed in support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge. First, as to authentication, the very same document was produced in the course of discovery by Plaintiff. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception.) RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 5 Plaintiff objects the reference to a letter attached to the Courteau Declaration filed in support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge. First, as to authentication, the very same document was produced in the course of discovery by Plaintiff. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itscll. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correet copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception.) RCV6384679.1/0CC, -3- CONSTRUCTION TESTING VICES. INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE, SUBMITTED BY DL IDANTS JN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTRopers Majeski Kohn & Bentley A Professional Corporation San Francisco. RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 6 Plaintiff objects the reference to the Centrix Builders, Inc. bid agreement relating to 973 market Street in the Courteau Declaration filed in support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge. First, as to authentication, this document was produced in the course of discovery by Plaintiff, and Joe Cassidy admits in his declaration that Centrix was retained by 973 Market to prepare just such a bid. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception and the Cassidy Declaration, 7.) RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 7 Plaintiff objects the reference to the Trustee’s Deed, pursuant to which Plaintiff took the property at issue after a trustee sale, attached to the Courteau Declaration filed in support of CTS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony lacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge. First, as to authentication, the very same document has been submitted to support Plaintiff's Opposition and was in fact produced in the course of discovery. Second, as to its contents, the document speaks for itself. Mr. Courteau merely points out a portion of the text of the document; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code $1271 re business records exception and the Cassidy Declaration, Ex. 7.) RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 8 Plaintiff objects the reference to the guarantees, acquire dby Plaintiff as part of the loan purchase, attached to Exhibit M to the Courteau Declaration filed in support of CTS*s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the testimony Jacks foundation and calls for speculation beyond Mr. Courteau’s personal knowledge. First, as to authentication, the very same documents have been submitted to this Court by RC1/6381679.1/DCC -4- TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JLIDGMENT CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC.?S RESPON: SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT €Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley A Professional Corporation San Francisco n vw & 20 1 Plaintiff in a different action seeking to enforce those guarantees. Second, as to their contents, the documents speaks for themselves. Mr. Courteau merely points out their existence; Plaintiff neither disputes that the text is contained in the document nor that the document is in fact a true and correct copy. (See also Cal. Evid. Code §1271 re business records exception.) RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 9 Plaintiff objects to statements relating to the scope and extent of CTS’s work at the property at issue, set forth in the declaration of James Doyle, on the grounds that the statements allegedly lack foundation, are speculative, are hearsay, and pursuant to the best evidence rule. Such objections are baseless. Mr. Doyle is a CTS Project Manager whose duties are to review the invoices for CTS projects on a monthly basis, based on the contractual rates, amounts and dates of service. As such, his statements regarding that work do not lack foundation, and are not speculative and hearsay because they are based on business records and his personal knowledge. Plaintiff's evidence regarding the best evidence rule assumes, without any evidence in support, that CTS had a written contract. RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 10 Plaintiff objects to statements relating to the frequency of CTS employees presence at the property at issue, set forth in the declaration of James Doyle, on the grounds that the statements allegedly lack foundation and are hearsay. Such objections are baseless. Mr. Doyle is a CTS Project Manager whose duties are to review the invoices for CTS projects on a monthly basis, based on the contractual rates, amounts and dates of service. As such. his statements regarding that work do not lack foundation, and are not hearsay because they are based on business records and his personal knowledge. RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 11 Plaintiff objects to statements relating to the frequency of CTS employees presence at the property at issue, set forth in the declaration of James Doyle. on the grounds that the statements allegedly lack foundation, are speculative, and are hearsay. Such objections are baseless. Mr. Doyle is a CTS Project Manager whose duties are to review the invoices for CTS projects on a monthly basis, based on the contractual rates, amounts RO16384679.1/DCC -5- CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTRopers Majeski Kohn & Bentley A Professional Corporation San Francisca te and dates of service. As such, his statements regarding that work do not lack foundation, and are not speculative and hearsay because they are based on business records and his personal knowledge. RESPONSE RE: OBJECTION NO. 12 Plaintiff objects to statements relating to the frequency of CTS employees presence at the property at issue, set forth in the declaration of James Doyle, on the grounds that the statements allegedly lack foundation, are speculative, and are hearsay. Such objections are baseless. Mr. Doyle is a CTS Project Manager whose duties are to review the invoices for CTS projects on a monthly basis, based on the contractual rates, amounts and dates of service. As such, his statements regarding that work, and especially when it began and ended, do not lack foundation, and are not speculative and hearsay because they are based on business records and his personal knowledge. Dated: March 16, 2012 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY By: TO See Attorneys for Defendant and Cross- Complainant CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC. RE16384679 DCC -6- CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDI NCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT