Party Discovery: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                STEPHANIE J. FINELLI, SBN 173462
     Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli                                           FfLEO
 2   1007-7th Street, Suite 500                                                   Superior Court Of ^aliforniaj
     Sacramento, CA 95814                                                         Sacramento
 3   tel 916-443-2144
     fax 916-443-1511                                                             12/22/2010
 4                                                                                iwhitfseld
     Attomey for Plaintiffs,
 5                                                                                ^1                     IJ Deputy
     FLORENTINE and RODNEY ABBOTT
                                                                                  Casa Numbur:
 6

 7                  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 8                          IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
9

10   FLORENTINE AND RODNEY ABBOTT,                      CaseNo.:07AS04450
11                  Plainfiffs,                         PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO R4C0RP'S
                                                        MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
12          vs.                                         DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT
                                                        PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY
13   RONALD BRITSCHGI, et. al..
                                                        Hearing on Motion: January 7, 2011
14                  Defendants                          Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                        Trial Date: January 18, 2011
15                                                      Judge: Brian Van Camp
                                                        Dept: 43
16

17          This is again one of those motions in limine that serves no purpose and would require the
18   court to mle in a vacuum. R4 Corp has not pointed to any evidence it believes plaintiff will seek
19   to introduce that was not produced in discovery. More importantly, it is only evidence that was
20   improperly withheld during discovery that could possibly be excluded at trial, if a party did nol
21   ask for certain evidence, then the opposing party cannot have withheld it.
22          Addltionaily, R4Corp seems to be asking the court to exclude evidence not produced to it
23   during discovery. But R4Corp did not perform discovery. It has been named as a successor in
24   interest to defendant CA Construction. There is simply no basis for allowing a successor to
25   exclude such evidence at trial
26          And CA Constmction has not made a similar motion. Thus, it has not asked to exclude
27   evidence regarding CA Constmction that was not produced during discovery.
28




                                        Opposition to Motion in Limine -1
 1          If plaintiffs seek to introduce evidence that the court mles has been improperly withheld
2    from discovery, then it may object and get a mling on that piece of evidence. But it is premature
3    and unworkable for this Court to make a mling before trial even starts as to what evidence might
4    be introduced which defendants are as yet unaware of and do not even know if they asked for in
5    discovery.
6           The motion must be denied. In the altemative, CA Constmction and R4Corp should
7    likewise be barred from introducing evidence they did not produce in discovery.
8

9
     Dated: December"^, 2010
10
                                                             Stephanie J. Finelli,
11                                                           Attomey for Plaintiffs
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




                                        Opposition to Motion in Limine - 2