Preview
1 Michael C. Parme (Bar No. 261719)
mparme@hbblaw.com
2 Stevie B. Baris (Bar No. 287708)
sbaris@hbblaw.com
3 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP
edocs@hbblaw.com
4 402 West Broadway, Suite 1850
San Diego, CA 92101
5 Telephone: 619.595.5583
Facsimile: 619.595.7873
6
7 Attorneys for Defendant
JACOB JOHN SONGER dba
8 INFERNO GUARD
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF NAPA
12
13 JAMES RAYMOND, Case No. 21CV001225
an individual,
14 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Plaintiff, NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING
15 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION
v.
16 Judge: Hon. Cynthia P. Smith
JACOB JOHN SONGER, an individual, dba Date: August 24, 2023
17 INFERNO GUARD and DOES 1 through 50, Time: 8:30 a.m.
inclusive, Dept.: A
18
Defendants. Action Filed: August 24, 2021
19 Trial Date: August 28, 2023
20
21
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant Jacob John Songer dba Inferno Guard
23
(“defendant”) will, and hereby does, move this Court in limine for an Order instructing plaintiff
24
James Raymond (“Raymond” or “plaintiff”), his counsel and witnesses, to abstain from any
25
reference, comment, innuendo or evidence, either by way of documents or testimony, concerning
26
any loss or devastation caused by the 2020 Glass Fire other than its impact upon trees and other
27
plant matter on and around plaintiff’s property located at 101 Oak Street in St. Helena, California
28
1
NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING
14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION
1 94575 (the “Subject Property”), without first obtaining permission of the court outside the
2 presence and hearing of the jury.
3 This Motion is based on the grounds that defendant relied, as he must, on facts and
4 information that have been elicited through discovery or to which privileges were asserted, and
5 upon the grounds that it would be unfairly prejudicial to defendant in the event plaintiff is
6 suddenly permitted to introduce any evidence of the impact of the 2020 Glass Fire upon aspect(s)
7 of his life external to the trees and/or other plant matter upon the Subject Property which are at-
8 issue in this litigation, including but not limited to evidence concerning the burning down of any
9 structure(s) at the Subject Property and the impact of the Glass Fire upon plaintiff, plaintiff’s
10 family and/or plaintiff’s friends. This Motion is made pursuant to §§ 350 and 352 of the Evidence
11 Code.
12 This Motion is supported by the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and
13 records on file herein and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing
14 of this Motion.
15
16 DATED: August 10, 2023 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP
17
18 By:
19 Michael Parme
Stevie B. Baris
20 Attorneys for Defendant
JACOB JOHN SONGER dba INFERNO GUARD
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING
14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 1.
3 INTRODUCTION
4 It is anticipated that plaintiff, his counsel and/or witnesses may attempt to introduce
5 testimony or evidence concerning loss or devastation stemming from the 2020 Glass Fire external
6 to the Glass Fire’s impact upon the trees and/or other plant matter which are at-issue in this
7 litigation in order to elicit an undue emotional response from the jury. This lawsuit does not
8 pertain to, or endeavor to apportion fault in connection with, the occurrence of the Glass Fire
9 itself. Rather, this lawsuit concerns events after the Glass Fire swept through, and ravaged, the
10 Subject Property and surrounding geographical areas. As such, any effort by plaintiff to present
11 evidence concerning the impact of the Glass Fire itself, including but not limited to the burning
12 down of residence(s) or other structure(s) on the Subject Property, and the physical, mental or
13 emotional toll the Glass Fire had upon plaintiff, his family or his friends, is irrelevant to the issues
14 presented in this litigation and would be unduly prejudicial to defendant. Any attempt by plaintiff,
15 his witnesses or his counsel to make reference to any evidence of the impact of the 2020 Glass
16 Fire upon aspect(s) of plaintiff’s life external to the trees and/or other plant matter upon the
17 Subject Property would only serve as an attempt to prejudice defendant in this action.
18 2.
19 A PARTY MAY BE RESTRICTED TO INTRODUCE ONLY THAT EVIDENCE WHICH
20 HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH DISCOVERY
21 In enacting the discovery statutes, the legislature intended to take the “game” element out
22 of trial preparation by assisting the parties in obtaining the facts and evidence necessary for
23 expeditious resolution of their dispute. The system was intended to give greater assistance to the
24 parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury; to provide an effective
25 means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent, and sham claims and defenses; to make
26 available, in a single, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise would not be proved
27 except with great difficulty; to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their
28 claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; to expedite litigation; to safeguard against
3
NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING
14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION
1 surprise; to prevent delays; to simplify and narrow the issues; and to expedite and facilitate both
2 preparation and trial. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 291; Greyhound Corp. v.
3 Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355.)
4 One of the purposes of the Discovery Act is to “…enable a party to obtain evidence in the
5 control of his adversary in order to further the efficient, economical disposition of the case
6 according to right and justice on the merits.” (Thomas v. Luong (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 76, 81.)
7 The discovery statutes are intended to safeguard against surprise. Mutual exchange of data
8 provides some protection against attempted one-way disclosure. (City of Fresno v. Harrison
9 (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d 296.) In short, the purpose of the Discovery Act is to prevent “trial by
10 ambush.” In order to implement the purposes of the Discovery Act, the court must therefore
11 exclude any evidence or documents which were not disclosed during discovery.
12 The decisions in both Thoren v. Johnston and Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270 (at 274-
13 75) and Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 241 reflect the purposes of the civil discovery
14 statutes and their design to provide parties to a lawsuit the ability to prepare adequately for trial
15 based on the information that has been gathered through discovery. The purpose of such rules is
16 to provide each party an opportunity to properly prepare for trial without the problem of unfair
17 surprise, as well as to provide for judicial economy in that all parties will be properly prepared for
18 trial without burdening the court with continuances necessitated by new evidence coming to light
19 immediately before, or during, trial.
20 Here, the parties neither conducted nor exchanged discovery pertaining to the overarching
21 impact of the Glass Fire upon plaintiff, such as the burning down of the residence(s) or other
22 structure(s) on the Subject Property, or the effects of the Glass Fire upon plaintiff, plaintiff’s
23 family, plaintiff’s friends or the surrounding community. In light of the above, plaintiff must be
24 precluded from introducing any evidence of, in connection with, or related to any loss or
25 devastation caused by the 2020 Glass Fire other than its impact upon trees and other plant matter
26 on and around the Subject Property.
27 \\\
28 \\\
4
NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING
14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION
1 3.
2 EVEN ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, THAT THE TESTIMONY COULD BE
3 ADMISSIBLE, THIS COURT SHOULD DEEM IT INADMISSIBLE
4 Evidence Code § 352 provides:
5 The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value
is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will
6 (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial
danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading
7 the jury.
8
As set forth above, this litigation does not concern the overarching impact of, or the losses
9
or other damage(s) caused by, the occurrence of the 2020 Glass Fire itself. Instead, this litigation
10
pertains to the treatment of trees and/or other plant matter at the Subject Property after the Glass
11
Fire had already ravaged the Subject Property and surrounding areas. Defendant does not stand
12
accused of igniting the Glass Fire, of burning down any residence at the Subject Property, or of
13
setting fire to any tree or plant material at the Subject Property. Any effort by plaintiff to introduce
14
such evidence must thus be viewed solely as an improper effort to elicit an undue emotional
15
response from the jury, irrelevant to those matters at-issue in this litigation.
16
It would be unfairly prejudicial to defendant in the event plaintiff is suddenly permitted to
17
introduce testimony, opinions and/or other evidence concerning the overarching impact of the
18
Glass Fire upon plaintiff’s property, health or life in general, when this litigation does not pertain
19
to the occurrence of the Glass Fire itself, but instead pertains to events commencing thereafter—
20
after the Subject Property had already been ravaged by the 2020 Glass Fire wildfire.
21
Permitting plaintiff, or any other witness, to now testify about any loss or devastation
22
caused by the 2020 Glass Fire other than its impact upon trees and other plant matter on and
23
around the Subject Property, at this stage, is just the type of manipulation and gamesmanship
24
Section 352 and the case law cited herein is intended to prohibit as highly prejudicial.
25
\\\
26
\\\
27
\\\
28
5
NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING
14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION
1 4.
2 CONCLUSION
3 For the reasons stated herein, defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant this
4 motion in limine to preclude any reference, comment, innuendo or evidence, either by way of
5 documents or testimony, concerning any loss or devastation caused by the 2020 Glass Fire other
6 than its impact upon trees and other plant matter on and around the Subject Property, without first
7 obtaining permission of the court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.
8
9 DATED: August 10, 2023 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP
10
11 By:
12 Michael Parme
Stevie B. Baris
13 Attorneys for Defendant
JACOB JOHN SONGER dba INFERNO GUARD
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING
14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
James Raymond v. Jacob John Songer
2 Case No. 21CV001225
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I
am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is
5 505 Sansome Street, Suite 1701, San Francisco, CA 94111.
6 On August 10, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s) described
as:
7
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY
8 CONCERNING GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION
9 on the interested parties in this action as follows:
10 Michael W. Rupprecht, Esq. T: 707-252-9000 / F: 707-252-0729
GVM LAW, LLP MRupprecht@gvmlaw.com
11 1000 Main Street, Suite 300 Cathy@gvmlaw.com
Napa, CA 94559
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JAMES
RAYMOND
13
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the
14 document(s) to be sent from e-mail address pjohnson@hbblaw.com to the persons at the
e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after
15 the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
16
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
17 foregoing is true and correct.
18 Executed on August 10, 2023, at San Francisco, California.
19
20
Paula M. Johnson
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING
14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION
Preview
1 Michael C. Parme (Bar No. 261719) mparme@hbblaw.com 2 Stevie B. Baris (Bar No. 287708) sbaris@hbblaw.com 3 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP edocs@hbblaw.com 4 402 West Broadway, Suite 1850 San Diego, CA 92101 5 Telephone: 619.595.5583 Facsimile: 619.595.7873 6 7 Attorneys for Defendant JACOB JOHN SONGER dba 8 INFERNO GUARD 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF NAPA 12 13 JAMES RAYMOND, Case No. 21CV001225 an individual, 14 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE Plaintiff, NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING 15 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION v. 16 Judge: Hon. Cynthia P. Smith JACOB JOHN SONGER, an individual, dba Date: August 24, 2023 17 INFERNO GUARD and DOES 1 through 50, Time: 8:30 a.m. inclusive, Dept.: A 18 Defendants. Action Filed: August 24, 2021 19 Trial Date: August 28, 2023 20 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant Jacob John Songer dba Inferno Guard 23 (“defendant”) will, and hereby does, move this Court in limine for an Order instructing plaintiff 24 James Raymond (“Raymond” or “plaintiff”), his counsel and witnesses, to abstain from any 25 reference, comment, innuendo or evidence, either by way of documents or testimony, concerning 26 any loss or devastation caused by the 2020 Glass Fire other than its impact upon trees and other 27 plant matter on and around plaintiff’s property located at 101 Oak Street in St. Helena, California 28 1 NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING 14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION 1 94575 (the “Subject Property”), without first obtaining permission of the court outside the 2 presence and hearing of the jury. 3 This Motion is based on the grounds that defendant relied, as he must, on facts and 4 information that have been elicited through discovery or to which privileges were asserted, and 5 upon the grounds that it would be unfairly prejudicial to defendant in the event plaintiff is 6 suddenly permitted to introduce any evidence of the impact of the 2020 Glass Fire upon aspect(s) 7 of his life external to the trees and/or other plant matter upon the Subject Property which are at- 8 issue in this litigation, including but not limited to evidence concerning the burning down of any 9 structure(s) at the Subject Property and the impact of the Glass Fire upon plaintiff, plaintiff’s 10 family and/or plaintiff’s friends. This Motion is made pursuant to §§ 350 and 352 of the Evidence 11 Code. 12 This Motion is supported by the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and 13 records on file herein and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing 14 of this Motion. 15 16 DATED: August 10, 2023 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 17 18 By: 19 Michael Parme Stevie B. Baris 20 Attorneys for Defendant JACOB JOHN SONGER dba INFERNO GUARD 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING 14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 1. 3 INTRODUCTION 4 It is anticipated that plaintiff, his counsel and/or witnesses may attempt to introduce 5 testimony or evidence concerning loss or devastation stemming from the 2020 Glass Fire external 6 to the Glass Fire’s impact upon the trees and/or other plant matter which are at-issue in this 7 litigation in order to elicit an undue emotional response from the jury. This lawsuit does not 8 pertain to, or endeavor to apportion fault in connection with, the occurrence of the Glass Fire 9 itself. Rather, this lawsuit concerns events after the Glass Fire swept through, and ravaged, the 10 Subject Property and surrounding geographical areas. As such, any effort by plaintiff to present 11 evidence concerning the impact of the Glass Fire itself, including but not limited to the burning 12 down of residence(s) or other structure(s) on the Subject Property, and the physical, mental or 13 emotional toll the Glass Fire had upon plaintiff, his family or his friends, is irrelevant to the issues 14 presented in this litigation and would be unduly prejudicial to defendant. Any attempt by plaintiff, 15 his witnesses or his counsel to make reference to any evidence of the impact of the 2020 Glass 16 Fire upon aspect(s) of plaintiff’s life external to the trees and/or other plant matter upon the 17 Subject Property would only serve as an attempt to prejudice defendant in this action. 18 2. 19 A PARTY MAY BE RESTRICTED TO INTRODUCE ONLY THAT EVIDENCE WHICH 20 HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH DISCOVERY 21 In enacting the discovery statutes, the legislature intended to take the “game” element out 22 of trial preparation by assisting the parties in obtaining the facts and evidence necessary for 23 expeditious resolution of their dispute. The system was intended to give greater assistance to the 24 parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury; to provide an effective 25 means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent, and sham claims and defenses; to make 26 available, in a single, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise would not be proved 27 except with great difficulty; to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their 28 claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; to expedite litigation; to safeguard against 3 NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING 14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION 1 surprise; to prevent delays; to simplify and narrow the issues; and to expedite and facilitate both 2 preparation and trial. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 291; Greyhound Corp. v. 3 Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355.) 4 One of the purposes of the Discovery Act is to “…enable a party to obtain evidence in the 5 control of his adversary in order to further the efficient, economical disposition of the case 6 according to right and justice on the merits.” (Thomas v. Luong (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 76, 81.) 7 The discovery statutes are intended to safeguard against surprise. Mutual exchange of data 8 provides some protection against attempted one-way disclosure. (City of Fresno v. Harrison 9 (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d 296.) In short, the purpose of the Discovery Act is to prevent “trial by 10 ambush.” In order to implement the purposes of the Discovery Act, the court must therefore 11 exclude any evidence or documents which were not disclosed during discovery. 12 The decisions in both Thoren v. Johnston and Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270 (at 274- 13 75) and Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 241 reflect the purposes of the civil discovery 14 statutes and their design to provide parties to a lawsuit the ability to prepare adequately for trial 15 based on the information that has been gathered through discovery. The purpose of such rules is 16 to provide each party an opportunity to properly prepare for trial without the problem of unfair 17 surprise, as well as to provide for judicial economy in that all parties will be properly prepared for 18 trial without burdening the court with continuances necessitated by new evidence coming to light 19 immediately before, or during, trial. 20 Here, the parties neither conducted nor exchanged discovery pertaining to the overarching 21 impact of the Glass Fire upon plaintiff, such as the burning down of the residence(s) or other 22 structure(s) on the Subject Property, or the effects of the Glass Fire upon plaintiff, plaintiff’s 23 family, plaintiff’s friends or the surrounding community. In light of the above, plaintiff must be 24 precluded from introducing any evidence of, in connection with, or related to any loss or 25 devastation caused by the 2020 Glass Fire other than its impact upon trees and other plant matter 26 on and around the Subject Property. 27 \\\ 28 \\\ 4 NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING 14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION 1 3. 2 EVEN ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, THAT THE TESTIMONY COULD BE 3 ADMISSIBLE, THIS COURT SHOULD DEEM IT INADMISSIBLE 4 Evidence Code § 352 provides: 5 The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will 6 (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading 7 the jury. 8 As set forth above, this litigation does not concern the overarching impact of, or the losses 9 or other damage(s) caused by, the occurrence of the 2020 Glass Fire itself. Instead, this litigation 10 pertains to the treatment of trees and/or other plant matter at the Subject Property after the Glass 11 Fire had already ravaged the Subject Property and surrounding areas. Defendant does not stand 12 accused of igniting the Glass Fire, of burning down any residence at the Subject Property, or of 13 setting fire to any tree or plant material at the Subject Property. Any effort by plaintiff to introduce 14 such evidence must thus be viewed solely as an improper effort to elicit an undue emotional 15 response from the jury, irrelevant to those matters at-issue in this litigation. 16 It would be unfairly prejudicial to defendant in the event plaintiff is suddenly permitted to 17 introduce testimony, opinions and/or other evidence concerning the overarching impact of the 18 Glass Fire upon plaintiff’s property, health or life in general, when this litigation does not pertain 19 to the occurrence of the Glass Fire itself, but instead pertains to events commencing thereafter— 20 after the Subject Property had already been ravaged by the 2020 Glass Fire wildfire. 21 Permitting plaintiff, or any other witness, to now testify about any loss or devastation 22 caused by the 2020 Glass Fire other than its impact upon trees and other plant matter on and 23 around the Subject Property, at this stage, is just the type of manipulation and gamesmanship 24 Section 352 and the case law cited herein is intended to prohibit as highly prejudicial. 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 5 NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING 14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION 1 4. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons stated herein, defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant this 4 motion in limine to preclude any reference, comment, innuendo or evidence, either by way of 5 documents or testimony, concerning any loss or devastation caused by the 2020 Glass Fire other 6 than its impact upon trees and other plant matter on and around the Subject Property, without first 7 obtaining permission of the court outside the presence and hearing of the jury. 8 9 DATED: August 10, 2023 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 10 11 By: 12 Michael Parme Stevie B. Baris 13 Attorneys for Defendant JACOB JOHN SONGER dba INFERNO GUARD 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING 14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION 1 PROOF OF SERVICE James Raymond v. Jacob John Songer 2 Case No. 21CV001225 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is 5 505 Sansome Street, Suite 1701, San Francisco, CA 94111. 6 On August 10, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as: 7 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY 8 CONCERNING GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION 9 on the interested parties in this action as follows: 10 Michael W. Rupprecht, Esq. T: 707-252-9000 / F: 707-252-0729 GVM LAW, LLP MRupprecht@gvmlaw.com 11 1000 Main Street, Suite 300 Cathy@gvmlaw.com Napa, CA 94559 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JAMES RAYMOND 13 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the 14 document(s) to be sent from e-mail address pjohnson@hbblaw.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after 15 the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 17 foregoing is true and correct. 18 Executed on August 10, 2023, at San Francisco, California. 19 20 Paula M. Johnson 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NW08-0000074 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 RE: TESTIMONY CONCERNING 14657054.1 GLASS FIRE DEVASTATION