Preview
1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081)
jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com
2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035)
kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com
3
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
5 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501
6 Attorneys for Defendants
CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and
7 THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA
11
12 LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269
13 DEFENDANTS CELESTE WHITE,
Plaintiff, ROBERT WHITE, AND THE VALLEY
14 ROCK FOUNDATION’S EVIDENTIARY
v. OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF
15 JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED IN SUPPORT
CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK
16 DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP
FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S
FOUNDATION, a charitable organization,
17 COMPLAINT
and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,
18 Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young
Defendants. Dept.: B
19 Hearing Date: Feb. 1, 2023
Time: 8:30 a.m.
20
Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022
21 Trial Date: Not Set
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP TO DEFS.’
SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 Defendants Celeste White, Dr. Robert White, and The Valley Rock Foundation hereby
2 object to the Declaration of John S. Rueppel submitted by Plaintiff Lisa Keith in support of her
3 Opposition to Defendants’ Special Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike, as follows:
4
5 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
1. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 4, ll. 5-7: “Because Improper opinion testimony as to “robust”
6 Plaintiff was very concerned that her sister and “Plaintiff was very concerned” (Evid.
7 would attempt to smear her name later in Code, §§ 800-803; Morrow v. L.A. Unified
some way, she required a robust Non- Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424,
8 Disparagement Clause be included in the 1444-45)
Agreement.”
9 Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code,
§ 702) – In the event the declarant has
10 personal knowledge, the declarant will be
11 subject to fact discovery. In the event the
declarant lacks personal knowledge, the
12 assertion is impermissible evidence.
13 Hearsay as to the non-disparagement clause
being robust (Evid. Code, § 1200)
14
15 Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702)
16 Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403)
17 2. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 4, ll. 7-8: “That Improper opinion testimony as to what the
clause barred not only defamatory clause barred (Evid. Code, §§ 800-803;
18
language, . . .” Morrow v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) 149
19 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-45)
20 Hearsay as to what the clause barred (Evid.
Code, § 1200)
21
Best Evidence Rule (Evid. Code, §§ 1520-
22
1523)
23
3. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 5, ll. 12-13: Improper opinion testimony as to
24 “Defendants agreed to this extraordinarily “extraordinarily broad” (Evid. Code, §§ 800-
broad non-disparagement provision in 803; Morrow v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist.
25 return for the release of claims against (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-45)
26 them, and agreed to pay Plaintiff almost
$1,300,000 in damages.” Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code,
27 § 702)
28
-2-
DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP. TO DEFS.’
SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403)
2
3 Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702)
4 Hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200)
5 Best Evidence Rule (Evid. Code, §§ 1520-
1523)
6
7 4. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 6, ll. 14-16: “A few Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code,
months later, as Plaintiff had feared, § 702) - In the event the declarant has
8 Defendants began to disseminate false personal knowledge, the declarant will be
statements about the litigation, its result, subject to fact discovery. In the event the
9 and the judge’s ruling, which implied declarant lacks personal knowledge, the
Plaintiff’s claims had been frivolous, assertion is impermissible evidence.
10
casting her in a negative light and clearly
11 breaching the Agreement.” Improper opinion testimony/legal
conclusion (Evid. Code, §§ 800-803) – The
12 assertion of “false statements” and what any
statements “implied” are conclusions of law,
13 as are the conclusions that any statements
“cast[] [Plaintiff] in a negative light and
14
clearly breach[ed] the Agreement.” (See,
15 e.g., Hayman v. Block (1986) 176
Cal.App.3d 629, 639 [“[A]ffidavits must cite
16 evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or
‘ultimate facts.’”])
17
Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403)
18
19 Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702)
20 Hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200)
21 5. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 7, ll. 17-21: “The Improper opinion testimony/legal
22 statements (the ‘Press Releases’) were not conclusion (Evid. Code, §§ 800-803;
about any issue of public policy, in support Morrow v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) 149
23 of any cause or belief, and involved no Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-45) – The assertion
issues of public interest; they were pure that the press releases “were not about any
24 puffery, a mix of fact and falsehood issue of public policy, in support of any
designed only to glorify Defendants and cause or belief, and involved no issues of
25 disparage Plaintiff. Given the nature of the public interest” and that they “were mere
26 non-disparagement clause, it was an act of puffery” and “a mix of fact and falsehood
sheer arrogance to issue press releases that designed only to glorify Defendants and
27 in any way impugned Plaintiff and her case disparage Plaintiff” are questions of law.
against Defendants.” (See, e.g., Hayman v. Block (1986) 176
28
-3-
DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP. TO DEFS.’
SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
Cal.App.3d 629, 639 [“[A]ffidavits must cite
2 evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or
3 ‘ultimate facts.’”])
4 Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code,
§ 702)
5
Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702)
6
7 Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403)
8 Hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200)
9 6. Rueppel Decl., pp. 2-3, ¶ 8: “In the Irrelevant (Evid. Code, § 350) – The
Shakespeare play, Julius Caesar, Mark description of, and quotation from, Julius
10
Antony is ordered to give a public speech Caesar is plainly irrelevant (as well as an
11 in which he says nothing negative about inaccurate analysis of Act III, Scene 2).
Brutus and Cassius. Mark Antony
12 continues to praise Brutus and Cassius, but Improper opinion testimony (Evid. Code,
his words are eventually seen to be § 800; Morrow v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist.
13 damning of them and their assassination. In (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-45)
pertinent part, his speech reads:
14
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code, §
15 your ears. 702)
I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise
16 him. Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403)
The evil that men do lives after them;
17 The good is oft interrèd with their bones. Hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200)
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
18
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious. Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702)
19 If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it.
20 Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest
(For Brutus is an honorable man;
21 So are they all, all honorable men),
22 Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me,
23 But Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
24 He hath brought many captives home to
Rome,
25 Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
26 Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath
27 wept;
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
28
-4-
DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP. TO DEFS.’
SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
2 And Brutus is an honorable man.
3 You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
4 Which he did thrice refuse. Was this
ambition?
5 Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And sure he is an honorable man.
6 I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
7 But here I am to speak what I do know.”
8
9 Dated: January 25, 2023 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
10
By:
11
JEFFREY E. TSAI
12 KATHLEEN S. KIZER
Attorneys for Defendants Celeste White, Dr.
13 Robert White, and the Valley Rock Foundation
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP. TO DEFS.’
SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18
4 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400, San
5 Francisco, California 94105-2933.
6 On January 25, 2023, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
7 DEFENDANTS CELESTE WHITE, ROBERT WHITE, AND THE VALLEY
ROCK FOUNDATION’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION
8 OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE
9 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
10
on interested parties in this action by placing the original true copy(ies) thereof enclosed in a
11
sealed envelope as stated below:
12
John S. Rueppel
13 Evan D. Winet
JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP
14 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
15 San Francisco, California 94104
T: 415.693.0550 | F: 415.693.0500
16 E: john@jkzllp.com
evan@jkzllp.com
17 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa Keith
18
19 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package
provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the address
20 above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office
or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
22
true and correct.
23
Executed on January 25, 2023, at San Francisco, California.
24
25
Christina Perez
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
Preview
1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081) jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com 2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035) kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com 3 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, California 94105-2933 5 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501 6 Attorneys for Defendants CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and 7 THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA 11 12 LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269 13 DEFENDANTS CELESTE WHITE, Plaintiff, ROBERT WHITE, AND THE VALLEY 14 ROCK FOUNDATION’S EVIDENTIARY v. OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF 15 JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED IN SUPPORT CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK 16 DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, 17 COMPLAINT and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, 18 Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young Defendants. Dept.: B 19 Hearing Date: Feb. 1, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. 20 Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022 21 Trial Date: Not Set 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP TO DEFS.’ SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 Defendants Celeste White, Dr. Robert White, and The Valley Rock Foundation hereby 2 object to the Declaration of John S. Rueppel submitted by Plaintiff Lisa Keith in support of her 3 Opposition to Defendants’ Special Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike, as follows: 4 5 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: 1. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 4, ll. 5-7: “Because Improper opinion testimony as to “robust” 6 Plaintiff was very concerned that her sister and “Plaintiff was very concerned” (Evid. 7 would attempt to smear her name later in Code, §§ 800-803; Morrow v. L.A. Unified some way, she required a robust Non- Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 8 Disparagement Clause be included in the 1444-45) Agreement.” 9 Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code, § 702) – In the event the declarant has 10 personal knowledge, the declarant will be 11 subject to fact discovery. In the event the declarant lacks personal knowledge, the 12 assertion is impermissible evidence. 13 Hearsay as to the non-disparagement clause being robust (Evid. Code, § 1200) 14 15 Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702) 16 Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403) 17 2. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 4, ll. 7-8: “That Improper opinion testimony as to what the clause barred not only defamatory clause barred (Evid. Code, §§ 800-803; 18 language, . . .” Morrow v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 19 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-45) 20 Hearsay as to what the clause barred (Evid. Code, § 1200) 21 Best Evidence Rule (Evid. Code, §§ 1520- 22 1523) 23 3. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 5, ll. 12-13: Improper opinion testimony as to 24 “Defendants agreed to this extraordinarily “extraordinarily broad” (Evid. Code, §§ 800- broad non-disparagement provision in 803; Morrow v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. 25 return for the release of claims against (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-45) 26 them, and agreed to pay Plaintiff almost $1,300,000 in damages.” Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code, 27 § 702) 28 -2- DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP. TO DEFS.’ SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403) 2 3 Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702) 4 Hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200) 5 Best Evidence Rule (Evid. Code, §§ 1520- 1523) 6 7 4. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 6, ll. 14-16: “A few Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code, months later, as Plaintiff had feared, § 702) - In the event the declarant has 8 Defendants began to disseminate false personal knowledge, the declarant will be statements about the litigation, its result, subject to fact discovery. In the event the 9 and the judge’s ruling, which implied declarant lacks personal knowledge, the Plaintiff’s claims had been frivolous, assertion is impermissible evidence. 10 casting her in a negative light and clearly 11 breaching the Agreement.” Improper opinion testimony/legal conclusion (Evid. Code, §§ 800-803) – The 12 assertion of “false statements” and what any statements “implied” are conclusions of law, 13 as are the conclusions that any statements “cast[] [Plaintiff] in a negative light and 14 clearly breach[ed] the Agreement.” (See, 15 e.g., Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639 [“[A]ffidavits must cite 16 evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate facts.’”]) 17 Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403) 18 19 Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702) 20 Hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200) 21 5. Rueppel Decl., p. 2, ¶ 7, ll. 17-21: “The Improper opinion testimony/legal 22 statements (the ‘Press Releases’) were not conclusion (Evid. Code, §§ 800-803; about any issue of public policy, in support Morrow v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 23 of any cause or belief, and involved no Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-45) – The assertion issues of public interest; they were pure that the press releases “were not about any 24 puffery, a mix of fact and falsehood issue of public policy, in support of any designed only to glorify Defendants and cause or belief, and involved no issues of 25 disparage Plaintiff. Given the nature of the public interest” and that they “were mere 26 non-disparagement clause, it was an act of puffery” and “a mix of fact and falsehood sheer arrogance to issue press releases that designed only to glorify Defendants and 27 in any way impugned Plaintiff and her case disparage Plaintiff” are questions of law. against Defendants.” (See, e.g., Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 28 -3- DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP. TO DEFS.’ SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Cal.App.3d 629, 639 [“[A]ffidavits must cite 2 evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or 3 ‘ultimate facts.’”]) 4 Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code, § 702) 5 Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702) 6 7 Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403) 8 Hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200) 9 6. Rueppel Decl., pp. 2-3, ¶ 8: “In the Irrelevant (Evid. Code, § 350) – The Shakespeare play, Julius Caesar, Mark description of, and quotation from, Julius 10 Antony is ordered to give a public speech Caesar is plainly irrelevant (as well as an 11 in which he says nothing negative about inaccurate analysis of Act III, Scene 2). Brutus and Cassius. Mark Antony 12 continues to praise Brutus and Cassius, but Improper opinion testimony (Evid. Code, his words are eventually seen to be § 800; Morrow v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. 13 damning of them and their assassination. In (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-45) pertinent part, his speech reads: 14 Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me Lacks personal knowledge (Evid. Code, § 15 your ears. 702) I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise 16 him. Lacks foundation (Evid. Code, § 403) The evil that men do lives after them; 17 The good is oft interrèd with their bones. Hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200) So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus 18 Hath told you Caesar was ambitious. Speculation (Evid. Code, § 702) 19 If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answered it. 20 Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest (For Brutus is an honorable man; 21 So are they all, all honorable men), 22 Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me, 23 But Brutus says he was ambitious, And Brutus is an honorable man. 24 He hath brought many captives home to Rome, 25 Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. 26 Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath 27 wept; Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. 28 -4- DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP. TO DEFS.’ SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, 2 And Brutus is an honorable man. 3 You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, 4 Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition? 5 Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, And sure he is an honorable man. 6 I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, 7 But here I am to speak what I do know.” 8 9 Dated: January 25, 2023 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 10 By: 11 JEFFREY E. TSAI 12 KATHLEEN S. KIZER Attorneys for Defendants Celeste White, Dr. 13 Robert White, and the Valley Rock Foundation 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- DEFS.’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED ISO PL.’S OPP. TO DEFS.’ SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 4 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400, San 5 Francisco, California 94105-2933. 6 On January 25, 2023, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: 7 DEFENDANTS CELESTE WHITE, ROBERT WHITE, AND THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION 8 OF JOHN S. RUEPPEL FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE 9 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 10 on interested parties in this action by placing the original true copy(ies) thereof enclosed in a 11 sealed envelope as stated below: 12 John S. Rueppel 13 Evan D. Winet JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP 14 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 15 San Francisco, California 94104 T: 415.693.0550 | F: 415.693.0500 16 E: john@jkzllp.com evan@jkzllp.com 17 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa Keith 18 19 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the address 20 above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 22 true and correct. 23 Executed on January 25, 2023, at San Francisco, California. 24 25 Christina Perez 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO. 22CV001269