Motion-Secondary: David Ridge vs. The California Highway Patrol

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                .1     ROB BONTA
       Attorney General of California
.2     KRISTIN M . DAILY
       Supervising Deputy Attorney General
 3     JAMES F. CURRAN                                                    FILED/Ef^OeSED
       Deputy Attomey General
 4     State Bar'No. 142041
        :'1300'-1 Street, Suite 125                                               FEB 2 h 2023
•:5      P.O. Box 944255                                                            E. Macdonald
         Sacramento, CA 94244-2550                                        By:.
                                                                                      Deputy Clerk • ;   -
-6       Telephone: (916)210-6113
         Fax: (916) 324-5567
•7       E-mail: James.Curran@doj.ca.gov
       Attorneys for Defendant
:8     Californiq Highway Patrol

 9                         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10                                      COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
.12
13
       DAVID RIDGE,                                        Case No. 34-2019-00265393
1'4
                                    Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S
15                                              OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S
                   V.                           EVIDENCE CITED IN OPPOSITION TO
1'6                                             CHP'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
                                                JUDGMENT OR ADJUDICATION
.1.7   THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL;
       and DOES 1-100, inclusive,              •Date:        March 2, 2023
18                                              Time:        1:30 p.m.
                                  Defendants. Dept:          53
19                                              Judge:       Hon. Richard K. Sueyoshi
                                                Trial Date:, April 3, 2023
20                                              Action Filed: September 23, 2019
21
22           Defendant California Highway Patrol (CHP) hereby objects to tlie following evidence
23     presented by Plaintiff David Ridge in opposition to CHP's Motion for Summary Judgment or
24     Adjudication. CHP respectfully reserves its right to make additional objections to Plaintiffs
.25    evidence at the hearing on this motion.
26
27
28


                                  California Highway Patrol's Objections to Plaintiffs Evidence (34-2019-00265393)
   r j   r-   f^i r-   ; i / 1 -

   r\ d IT. IIV L~ i j
•^C'iVnl-DROP BOX,



 Qi:)f'J.O fiOl'.iTiiOiJi'-E
   supERiGi'^. courrr
     OF CAU?Ok.H\:\
S.'oGi-Af.^rWTO COllHrv
           CHP'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE CITED IN PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
       PLAINTIFF'S "ADDITIONAL DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS"
-:2
-3     OBJECTION NUMBER
                                             GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:                             RULING:
\4     AND EVIDENCE
       OBJECTED TO:
_ 5                                          #. No foundatiomlaid for survey; survey
       1. Plaintiff s Additional Facts       questions are hypothetical; responses to-             Sustained
 6                                           survey concern a hypothetical vest of .'
       ("PAF") 272-287 re Mallory            unknown quality, design, appearance that              Overruled
•7                                           has never l^een tested; responses are ,
       Survey                                improper opinion testimony and lack , ,
 8                                           foundation; responses don't address
                                             appearance or possible safety hazards of
 9                                           ELBVs
                                             #. What Mallory has heard is
10     2. PAF 279 re "arguments              inadmissible hearsay; Mallory's opinions              Sustained
                                             on ELBVs are improper opinion
11     against ELBVs which Mallory           testimony; Mallory is not an expert                   Overruled
                                             witness
12     has heard"

,!3




                                                                                        •. .
.14    Mallory Depo. 18:3-23

.i5                                          #. No foundation laid for survey; survey
       3. Pltf. Exh. FF;                     questions are hypothetical; responses to              Sustained
16                                           survey concern a hypothetical vest of
                                             unknown quality, design, appearance that              Overruled
17                                           has never been tested; responses are
                                             improper opinion testimony and lack
18                                           foundation; responses don't address
                                             appearance or possible safety hazards of
19                                           ELBVs

20    Dated: February 24, 2023                                  Respectfully submitted,
21                                                              ROB BONTA
22                                                              Attorney General of California
                                                                KRISTIN M . DAILY
23                                                              Supervising Deputy Attorney General

24                                                                                   -^^^^—

25
26                                                              JAMES F. CURRAN
                                                                Deputy Attorney General
27                                                              Attorneys for Defendant
                                                                California Highway Patrol
28    SA2019106238, 36943084.docx



                                    California Highway Patrol's Objections to Plaintiffs Evidence (34-2019-00265393)
           DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT COURIER AND E-MAIL

Case Narne:              David Ridge v. CHP

No.:        34-2019-00265393

I declare:

I arn employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter; my business address is: 1300 1 Street, Suite 125, P.O. Box
944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550.

On Februarv 24. 2023. 1 served the attached CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE CITED IN OPPOSITION TO CHP'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ADJUDICATION by placing a true copy
thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with FED-EX, and by transmitting a true copy via
electronic mail addressed as follows:

John P. Briscoe
Mayall Hurley P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, Califomia 95207
E-mail Address:
ibriscoe(g),mayallaw.com
lrilev(a),mavallaw.com

1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February
24, 2023, at Sacramento, California.


               Christopher R. Irby                          S/ Christopher R. Irby          '

                          Declarant                                 Signature
SA20I9I06238
j0961638,doc,N3696l638,DOC,\