Preview
1 MONICA J. BURNEIKIS, SBN 239860
MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS
2 350 Sansome Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104-1311
3 Telephone: (415) 788-2035 ELECTRONICALLY
Facsimile: (415) 398-1337
4 E-mail: monica@meisel-law.com F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
SARAH JOY ANNE CARLSON 02/24/2020
6 Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
Deputy Clerk
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11
12 SARAH JOY ANNE CARLSON, CASE NO.: CGC-16-551446
13 Plaintiff,
v. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
14 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION; CITY 2
15 AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO;
and DOES 1 – 25,
16 Defendants. Trial Date: February 24, 2020
Time: 9:30 a.m.
17 Dept: 206
18
19 Defendants’ motion seeks to preclude Plaintiff from submitted evidence of Code
20 violations. Plaintiff is not making an ADA claim. However, such should not preclude the
21 introduction of evidence of Defendants’ violations of applicable building codes. The codes
22 Plaintiff’s experts rely on are not strictly ADA codes. Rather, the codes relevant to Defendants’
23 breach of duty, and which form the basis for Plaintiff’s negligence per se claims, are general
24 building codes appliable to construction work.
25 I. DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATED THE BUILDING CODE
26 The Codes Plaintiff intends to rely on are contained within the building code, specifically,
27 Section 3306.2, which applies specifically to the protection of pedestrians on walkways. This is
28 not an ADA code, although reference is made therein to the requirement that all pedestrians
M EISEL , K RENTSA
& B URNEIK IS -1-
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
1 walkways must comply with ADA standards.
2 Defendants seem to argue that because Plaintiff has not asserted an ADA claim, she is
3 precluded from referencing any appliable building or construction codes if the text of the code
4 makes any reference to an ADA provision. Defendants have not cited to a single authority in
5 support of this proposition.
6 II. PLAINTIFF PROPERLY RESPONDED TO DISCOVERY AND
APPROPRIATELY PARTICIPATED IN EXPERT DISCOVERY
7
8 Defendants contend Plaintiff should be precluded from relying on Code violations because
9 Plaintiff did not identify the specific codes in response to Form Interrogatory 14.1. What
10 Defendants fail to acknowledge is that Plaintiff properly objected to Form Interrogatory 14.1 on
11 the basis the interrogatory called for an expert opinion. Plaintiff did not provide a supplemental
12 response to this interrogatory in September of 2019 because, as of that date, Plaintiff did not have
13 later acquired information as to the specific building codes Plaintiff contended Defendants
14 violated. As of the date Plaintiff provided her initial response to Form Interrogatory 14.1 (i.e.,
15 July 6, 2018) and when Plaintiff served her responses to supplemental interrogatories (i.e.,
16 September 12, 2019), Plaintiff’s response was as full and complete as the information then-known
17 to her allowed.
18 On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff participated in the exchange of expert witness
19 information. Plaintiff disclosed Wes Daniels, an expert in construction and building codes. At
20 that point, Defendants were made aware of Plaintiff’s intention to contend Defendants violated
21 codes relevant to this litigation.
22 Defendants’ motion improperly assumes Plaintiff was aware of the specific codes to which
23 Mr. Daniels’ intended to cite at the time Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ supplemental
24 interrogatory and/or as of the date Mr. Daniels’ was disclosed as an expert. This is not accurate.
25 As can be seen on Mr. Daniels’ billing records, Mr. Daniels did not begin his code research until
26 October 22, 2019, and did not conduct his site visit until December 20, 2019. (Exhibit 1.)
27 Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 is really a backdoor attempt to exclude the testimony
28 of an expert witness. A motion may be brought pursuant to exclude proper expert witness
M EISEL , K RENTSA
& B URNEIK IS -2-
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
1 testimony only against a party who has: (1) unreasonably failed to list a witness as an expert; (2)
2 submit that witness’s declaration; (3) produce the witness’s reports and writings; and/or (4) make
3 the expert witness available for deposition. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.300.) Plaintiff has
4 complied with all aspects of expert witness discovery. Defendants’ motion to exclude Mr.
5 Daniel’s testimony should properly be denied.
6 CONCLUSION
7 Plaintiff appropriately participated in general discovery and expert discovery.
8 Defendants’ attempt to exclude the expert testimony of Mr. Daniels is not supported by any law.
9 There is no authority supporting the proposition that a party is precluded from referencing
10 building codes that make any reference to ADA standards. In fact, as pointed out in Mr. Daniel’s
11 deposition, the entire building code is very much in tune with the ADA. (Exhibit 2, Deposition of
12 Wes Daniels, 67:16-17.)
13 Any concern the Defendants have about the jury being confused or prejudiced if reference
14 is made to ADA codes can be appropriately addressed by a limiting instruction.
15 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny Defendants’ motion
16 in limine number 2.
17
18 Respectfully submitted,
19 DATED: February 24, 2020 MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS
20
21 By: ___________________________________
MONICA J. BURNEIKIS
22 Attorneys for Plaintiff
SARAH JOY ANNE CARLSON
23
24 DECLARATION OF MONICA J. BURNEIKIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
25 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
26 I, Monica J. Burneikis, declare:
27 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before all courts of the State of
28 California and am a partner with the Law Offices of Meisel, Krentsa & Burneikis, attorneys of
M EISEL , K RENTSA
& B URNEIK IS -3-
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
1 record for Plaintiff herein.
2 2. A true and correct copy of the relevant portions of Wes Daniels’ billing file is
3 attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
4 3. A true and correct copy of the relevant potions of Wes Daniels’ deposition is
5 attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
6 4. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
7 the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and if I
8 were called upon to testify to the facts and statements contained herein, I could competently
9 testify thereto.
10 Executed on February 24, 2020, in San Francisco, California.
11
________________________________
12 Monica J. Burneikis
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M EISEL , K RENTSA
& B URNEIK IS -4-
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
EXHIBIT 1
WES DANIELS CONSTRUCTION CODE CONSULTING
2344 FRANKLIN AVENUE. UNIT A / SANTA ROSA I CA/ 95404 I wdcode@sonic.net / (707) 576-1077
CARLSON vs. TUTOR-PERINI
ACTIVITY BREAKDOWN
OCTOBER 2019
DATE DESCRIPTON ID CONSULTANT TECH ASST EXPENSES
HRS@$185 (NET) (NET)
10118119 phone
Review Ramirez e-mail query re deposition dates;
conf: Burneikis WO 0.3
10/21119 Research/scan/send code WO 0.5
10/22119 research code;
Phone confs: Burneikis, Beyer re issues;
review Bumeikis transmittal,
VM to DSA re code question:
raffic control plan WO 1.8
10/23119 Phone conf: Ramirez x2 re deposition dates WO 0.1
10/25/19 VM to DSA; draft e-mail to Armstrong, review response
WO 0.2
10/29119 Phone conf: Burneikis re code issues, re depo dates;
review Ramirez transmittal. Hernandez depo WO 1.4
10/31/19 Phone conf: Beyer; research
scan/send cites to Beyer;
review Ramirez
code including phone conf: Shaw at DSA;
ransmittal, Huey depo WO 3.2
10131/19 SUBTOTALS: HOURS/EXPENSES 7.5 0.00 $0.00
10/31/19 SUBTOTALS: AMOUNTS $1.387.50 $0.00 $0.00
OCTOBER 2019
$1,387.50
WES DANIELS CONSTRUCTION CODE CONSUL TING
2344 FRANKLIN AVENUE, UNIT A / SANTA ROSA/ CA/ 95404 I wdcode@sonic.net I (707} 576-1077
CARLSON vs. TUTOR-PERINI
ACTIVITY BREAKDOWN
DECEMBER 2019
DATE DESCRIPTON ID CONSULTANT TECH ASST EXPENSES
HRS@$185 (NET) (NET)
12/10/19 N/C
IVM from Bumeikis office re deposition dates WO 0.0
12/11/19 Phone conf: Ramirez re dates WO 0.1
12/17/19 Phone confs: Beyer x2 re 12/18 meeting;
review code WO 0.8
12/18/19 Phone cont: Beyer re meeting now 12/20:
scan/send
!Code cites to Beyer WO 0.2
12/20/19 Prepare and attend site cont" Beyer WO 5.1
12/20/19 132.6 miles@ $0.37/mile WO 49.06
12/23/19 Phone confs: Beyer, Wong (DSA), Burneikis;
review
Burneikis transmittal, sketch of plaintiffs general path
WO 0.6
12/31/19 lsUBTOTALS: HOURS/EXPENSES 6.! 0.00 $49.06
12/31/19 SUBTOTALS: AMOUNTS $1,258.00 $0.00 $49.0E·
DECEMBER 2019
$1,307.06,
EXHIBIT 2
Wes Daniels Volume I
January 23, 2020
· · · · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
· · · · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
·
·
· · · ·SARAH JOY ANNE CARLSON,
· · · · · · · · · · · Plaintiff,
· · · · · · · ·vs.
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Case No.
· · · ·TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION;· · · · CGC-18-565434
· · · ·THE CREAMERY; HD BUTTERCUP;
· · · ·CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
· · · ·FRANCISCO, DOES 1 to 25,
·
· · · · · · · · · · · Defendants.
· · · ·_____________________________/
·
·
· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · WES DANIELS
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Volume I
·
·
· · · · · · · · · · ·Thursday, January 23, 2020
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·1:57 p.m.
·
· · · · · · · · ·456 Montgomery Street, 20th Floor
· · · · · · · · · · ·San Francisco, California
·
·
· · · · · · · · · SUZANNE F. GUDELJ, CSR No. 5111
U.S. Legal Support | www.uslegalsupport.com
·
Wes Daniels Volume I
January 23, 2020
·1· · Horizons book.· Nobody has them.
·2· · · · Q· · Does CalDAG have -- speak to what is required
·3· · when construction is ongoing?
·4· · · · A· · Yes.· Yeah, that's -- CalDAG does, and so does
·5· · the code.· And this is -- this is very specific in
·6· · the --
·7· · · · Q· · You're talking about 11B?
·8· · · · A· · Yeah.
·9· · · · Q· · Okay.· So CalDAG refers to 11B, correct?
10· · · · A· · This -- this ramping provision here --
11· · · · Q· · Yeah.
12· · · · A· · -- it says 11B.
13· · · · Q· · That's from the building code?
14· · · · A· · Yes.
15· · · · Q· · Okay.
16· · · · A· · And so what CalDAG is doing is -- the building
17· · code is now very much in tune with ADA.· You know, the
18· · language has been photocopied, but -- but -- but Gibbons
19· · looks at and reconciles the manuscript language that
20· · California puts in and still do, because California is
21· · still in the leading edge, and California has some very
22· · difficult people that don't go with the program.· And
23· · these are the -- these are the accessibility advocates
24· · that -- that are the -- a lot of them themselves are
25· · disabled, and they feel very passionately about whether
U.S. Legal Support | www.uslegalsupport.com
67 YVer1f
Preview
1 MONICA J. BURNEIKIS, SBN 239860 MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS 2 350 Sansome Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104-1311 3 Telephone: (415) 788-2035 ELECTRONICALLY Facsimile: (415) 398-1337 4 E-mail: monica@meisel-law.com F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 5 Attorney for Plaintiff SARAH JOY ANNE CARLSON 02/24/2020 6 Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO Deputy Clerk 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 12 SARAH JOY ANNE CARLSON, CASE NO.: CGC-16-551446 13 Plaintiff, v. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 14 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION; CITY 2 15 AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; and DOES 1 – 25, 16 Defendants. Trial Date: February 24, 2020 Time: 9:30 a.m. 17 Dept: 206 18 19 Defendants’ motion seeks to preclude Plaintiff from submitted evidence of Code 20 violations. Plaintiff is not making an ADA claim. However, such should not preclude the 21 introduction of evidence of Defendants’ violations of applicable building codes. The codes 22 Plaintiff’s experts rely on are not strictly ADA codes. Rather, the codes relevant to Defendants’ 23 breach of duty, and which form the basis for Plaintiff’s negligence per se claims, are general 24 building codes appliable to construction work. 25 I. DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATED THE BUILDING CODE 26 The Codes Plaintiff intends to rely on are contained within the building code, specifically, 27 Section 3306.2, which applies specifically to the protection of pedestrians on walkways. This is 28 not an ADA code, although reference is made therein to the requirement that all pedestrians M EISEL , K RENTSA & B URNEIK IS -1- PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 1 walkways must comply with ADA standards. 2 Defendants seem to argue that because Plaintiff has not asserted an ADA claim, she is 3 precluded from referencing any appliable building or construction codes if the text of the code 4 makes any reference to an ADA provision. Defendants have not cited to a single authority in 5 support of this proposition. 6 II. PLAINTIFF PROPERLY RESPONDED TO DISCOVERY AND APPROPRIATELY PARTICIPATED IN EXPERT DISCOVERY 7 8 Defendants contend Plaintiff should be precluded from relying on Code violations because 9 Plaintiff did not identify the specific codes in response to Form Interrogatory 14.1. What 10 Defendants fail to acknowledge is that Plaintiff properly objected to Form Interrogatory 14.1 on 11 the basis the interrogatory called for an expert opinion. Plaintiff did not provide a supplemental 12 response to this interrogatory in September of 2019 because, as of that date, Plaintiff did not have 13 later acquired information as to the specific building codes Plaintiff contended Defendants 14 violated. As of the date Plaintiff provided her initial response to Form Interrogatory 14.1 (i.e., 15 July 6, 2018) and when Plaintiff served her responses to supplemental interrogatories (i.e., 16 September 12, 2019), Plaintiff’s response was as full and complete as the information then-known 17 to her allowed. 18 On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff participated in the exchange of expert witness 19 information. Plaintiff disclosed Wes Daniels, an expert in construction and building codes. At 20 that point, Defendants were made aware of Plaintiff’s intention to contend Defendants violated 21 codes relevant to this litigation. 22 Defendants’ motion improperly assumes Plaintiff was aware of the specific codes to which 23 Mr. Daniels’ intended to cite at the time Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ supplemental 24 interrogatory and/or as of the date Mr. Daniels’ was disclosed as an expert. This is not accurate. 25 As can be seen on Mr. Daniels’ billing records, Mr. Daniels did not begin his code research until 26 October 22, 2019, and did not conduct his site visit until December 20, 2019. (Exhibit 1.) 27 Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 is really a backdoor attempt to exclude the testimony 28 of an expert witness. A motion may be brought pursuant to exclude proper expert witness M EISEL , K RENTSA & B URNEIK IS -2- PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 1 testimony only against a party who has: (1) unreasonably failed to list a witness as an expert; (2) 2 submit that witness’s declaration; (3) produce the witness’s reports and writings; and/or (4) make 3 the expert witness available for deposition. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.300.) Plaintiff has 4 complied with all aspects of expert witness discovery. Defendants’ motion to exclude Mr. 5 Daniel’s testimony should properly be denied. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Plaintiff appropriately participated in general discovery and expert discovery. 8 Defendants’ attempt to exclude the expert testimony of Mr. Daniels is not supported by any law. 9 There is no authority supporting the proposition that a party is precluded from referencing 10 building codes that make any reference to ADA standards. In fact, as pointed out in Mr. Daniel’s 11 deposition, the entire building code is very much in tune with the ADA. (Exhibit 2, Deposition of 12 Wes Daniels, 67:16-17.) 13 Any concern the Defendants have about the jury being confused or prejudiced if reference 14 is made to ADA codes can be appropriately addressed by a limiting instruction. 15 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny Defendants’ motion 16 in limine number 2. 17 18 Respectfully submitted, 19 DATED: February 24, 2020 MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS 20 21 By: ___________________________________ MONICA J. BURNEIKIS 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff SARAH JOY ANNE CARLSON 23 24 DECLARATION OF MONICA J. BURNEIKIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 25 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 26 I, Monica J. Burneikis, declare: 27 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before all courts of the State of 28 California and am a partner with the Law Offices of Meisel, Krentsa & Burneikis, attorneys of M EISEL , K RENTSA & B URNEIK IS -3- PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 1 record for Plaintiff herein. 2 2. A true and correct copy of the relevant portions of Wes Daniels’ billing file is 3 attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 4 3. A true and correct copy of the relevant potions of Wes Daniels’ deposition is 5 attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 6 4. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 7 the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and if I 8 were called upon to testify to the facts and statements contained herein, I could competently 9 testify thereto. 10 Executed on February 24, 2020, in San Francisco, California. 11 ________________________________ 12 Monica J. Burneikis 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M EISEL , K RENTSA & B URNEIK IS -4- PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 EXHIBIT 1 WES DANIELS CONSTRUCTION CODE CONSULTING 2344 FRANKLIN AVENUE. UNIT A / SANTA ROSA I CA/ 95404 I wdcode@sonic.net / (707) 576-1077 CARLSON vs. TUTOR-PERINI ACTIVITY BREAKDOWN OCTOBER 2019 DATE DESCRIPTON ID CONSULTANT TECH ASST EXPENSES HRS@$185 (NET) (NET) 10118119 phone Review Ramirez e-mail query re deposition dates; conf: Burneikis WO 0.3 10/21119 Research/scan/send code WO 0.5 10/22119 research code; Phone confs: Burneikis, Beyer re issues; review Bumeikis transmittal, VM to DSA re code question: raffic control plan WO 1.8 10/23119 Phone conf: Ramirez x2 re deposition dates WO 0.1 10/25/19 VM to DSA; draft e-mail to Armstrong, review response WO 0.2 10/29119 Phone conf: Burneikis re code issues, re depo dates; review Ramirez transmittal. Hernandez depo WO 1.4 10/31/19 Phone conf: Beyer; research scan/send cites to Beyer; review Ramirez code including phone conf: Shaw at DSA; ransmittal, Huey depo WO 3.2 10131/19 SUBTOTALS: HOURS/EXPENSES 7.5 0.00 $0.00 10/31/19 SUBTOTALS: AMOUNTS $1.387.50 $0.00 $0.00 OCTOBER 2019 $1,387.50 WES DANIELS CONSTRUCTION CODE CONSUL TING 2344 FRANKLIN AVENUE, UNIT A / SANTA ROSA/ CA/ 95404 I wdcode@sonic.net I (707} 576-1077 CARLSON vs. TUTOR-PERINI ACTIVITY BREAKDOWN DECEMBER 2019 DATE DESCRIPTON ID CONSULTANT TECH ASST EXPENSES HRS@$185 (NET) (NET) 12/10/19 N/C IVM from Bumeikis office re deposition dates WO 0.0 12/11/19 Phone conf: Ramirez re dates WO 0.1 12/17/19 Phone confs: Beyer x2 re 12/18 meeting; review code WO 0.8 12/18/19 Phone cont: Beyer re meeting now 12/20: scan/send !Code cites to Beyer WO 0.2 12/20/19 Prepare and attend site cont" Beyer WO 5.1 12/20/19 132.6 miles@ $0.37/mile WO 49.06 12/23/19 Phone confs: Beyer, Wong (DSA), Burneikis; review Burneikis transmittal, sketch of plaintiffs general path WO 0.6 12/31/19 lsUBTOTALS: HOURS/EXPENSES 6.! 0.00 $49.06 12/31/19 SUBTOTALS: AMOUNTS $1,258.00 $0.00 $49.0E· DECEMBER 2019 $1,307.06, EXHIBIT 2 Wes Daniels Volume I January 23, 2020 · · · · · · ·SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA · · · · · · · · · · · COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO · · · · · ·SARAH JOY ANNE CARLSON, · · · · · · · · · · · Plaintiff, · · · · · · · ·vs. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Case No. · · · ·TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION;· · · · CGC-18-565434 · · · ·THE CREAMERY; HD BUTTERCUP; · · · ·CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN · · · ·FRANCISCO, DOES 1 to 25, · · · · · · · · · · · · Defendants. · · · ·_____________________________/ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF · · · · · · · · · · · · · · WES DANIELS · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Volume I · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Thursday, January 23, 2020 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·1:57 p.m. · · · · · · · · · ·456 Montgomery Street, 20th Floor · · · · · · · · · · ·San Francisco, California · · · · · · · · · · · SUZANNE F. GUDELJ, CSR No. 5111 U.S. Legal Support | www.uslegalsupport.com · Wes Daniels Volume I January 23, 2020 ·1· · Horizons book.· Nobody has them. ·2· · · · Q· · Does CalDAG have -- speak to what is required ·3· · when construction is ongoing? ·4· · · · A· · Yes.· Yeah, that's -- CalDAG does, and so does ·5· · the code.· And this is -- this is very specific in ·6· · the -- ·7· · · · Q· · You're talking about 11B? ·8· · · · A· · Yeah. ·9· · · · Q· · Okay.· So CalDAG refers to 11B, correct? 10· · · · A· · This -- this ramping provision here -- 11· · · · Q· · Yeah. 12· · · · A· · -- it says 11B. 13· · · · Q· · That's from the building code? 14· · · · A· · Yes. 15· · · · Q· · Okay. 16· · · · A· · And so what CalDAG is doing is -- the building 17· · code is now very much in tune with ADA.· You know, the 18· · language has been photocopied, but -- but -- but Gibbons 19· · looks at and reconciles the manuscript language that 20· · California puts in and still do, because California is 21· · still in the leading edge, and California has some very 22· · difficult people that don't go with the program.· And 23· · these are the -- these are the accessibility advocates 24· · that -- that are the -- a lot of them themselves are 25· · disabled, and they feel very passionately about whether U.S. Legal Support | www.uslegalsupport.com 67 YVer1f