On December 19, 2014 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Sanchez Lourdes,
and
Itri Mary,
Taylor Austin,
for Motor Vehicle - PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
@
1 L. Walker Van Antwerp III, SBN 112696
Van Antwerp Law Firm
2 643 South Olive Street, Suite 220 -
Los Angeles, California 90014
(213) 688-8545 Superior Fit of Caliicznia
(213) 784-0767 fax ‘ounty of Los.Angeles
FEB 06 2017
Attorney for Plaintiff Lourdes Sanchez Shi lerri
mel ee
Carter, Exqcutive Officer/Clerk
By, Deputy
Raul Sanchez
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL CIVIL UNLIMITED - PI
10
11 LOURDES SANCHEZ, CASE NO. BC 567333
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN
13 VS. LIMINE #8 TO EXCLUDE
MEDICAL REPORTS NOT
14 }AUSTIN TAYLOR, MARY ITRI and DOES 1 TO 10 AUTHENTICATED
Inclusive,
15 DATE: February 7, 2017
TIME: 9:30 a.m
16 Defendants DEPT: 92
17 Hon. Michelle Williams Court - D 92
18
19 I
20 INTRODUCTION
21 Defendants move to exclude “medical reports that have not been authenticated”. This is
22 a boilerplate motion, which is meaningless without specific reference to evidence that Defendants
=
Ine
23 would like excluded. Defendants have seen virtually all of Plaintiff's medical records, and has taken
re
ho 24 Plaintiff's expert’s deposition. Defendants should be able to specify what reports they believe are
»
fom 25 inauthentic and therefore would be-subject to the motion. The motion does not seem like a motion;
md
26 it appears to be a declination to stipulate to authenticity. Defendants have the ability to object at the
27 time of trial, if they cannot specify what records they are trying to keep out
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MiL #8- MEDICAL RECORDS AUTHENTICITY
Document Filed Date
February 06, 2017
Case Filing Date
December 19, 2014
Category
Motor Vehicle - PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 06/19/2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
@ 1 L. Walker Van Antwerp III, SBN 112696 Van Antwerp Law Firm 2 643 South Olive Street, Suite 220 - Los Angeles, California 90014 (213) 688-8545 Superior Fit of Caliicznia (213) 784-0767 fax ‘ounty of Los.Angeles FEB 06 2017 Attorney for Plaintiff Lourdes Sanchez Shi lerri mel ee Carter, Exqcutive Officer/Clerk By, Deputy Raul Sanchez SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL CIVIL UNLIMITED - PI 10 11 LOURDES SANCHEZ, CASE NO. BC 567333 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN 13 VS. LIMINE #8 TO EXCLUDE MEDICAL REPORTS NOT 14 }AUSTIN TAYLOR, MARY ITRI and DOES 1 TO 10 AUTHENTICATED Inclusive, 15 DATE: February 7, 2017 TIME: 9:30 a.m 16 Defendants DEPT: 92 17 Hon. Michelle Williams Court - D 92 18 19 I 20 INTRODUCTION 21 Defendants move to exclude “medical reports that have not been authenticated”. This is 22 a boilerplate motion, which is meaningless without specific reference to evidence that Defendants = Ine 23 would like excluded. Defendants have seen virtually all of Plaintiff's medical records, and has taken re ho 24 Plaintiff's expert’s deposition. Defendants should be able to specify what reports they believe are » fom 25 inauthentic and therefore would be-subject to the motion. The motion does not seem like a motion; md 26 it appears to be a declination to stipulate to authenticity. Defendants have the ability to object at the 27 time of trial, if they cannot specify what records they are trying to keep out 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MiL #8- MEDICAL RECORDS AUTHENTICITY