Preview
FromlLUNDGREN/REYNOLDS 5302975077 07/?7/2009 18:19 #062 P.010/026
DWGJNAL
/ }/ — — •*
CRAIG N. LUNDGREN, Stale Bar 148842 Flfe6_ iNDORSED
LUNDGREN & REYNOLDS, LLP 1
424 2nd Street, Suite A
Davis, CA 95616 • JUL 27 2009
530.792.8800
530.297.5077 (fax) L KENNEDY
DEPOTS CLERK
Attorneys for Defendant
RONALD PAUL BRJTSCHGI
Individually and dba BRITSQHGI CONSTRUCTION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE ) CASE NO. 07AS04450
ABBOTT, )
11 ) DEFENDANT BRITSCHGI'S
Plaintiffs, ) OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN
12 ) SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
v. ) MOTION TO REOPEN
13 ) DISCOVERY
RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, individually )
14 and doing business as BRITSCHGI ) DATE: 8/7/09
CONSTRUCTION, RICHARD KIRK ) TIME: 9:00 A.M.
15 RUYBALID, individually and doing business ) DEPT: 54
as CA CONSTRUCTION, SURETY ) TRIAL DATE: 6/7/09
16 COMPANY OF THE PACIFIC, WESTERN )
SURETY COMPANY and DOES, 1 through 20,) BY FAX
17 inclusive,
18 Defendants.
19
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
20
21
22 Defendant Ronald Paul Britschgi objects to the evidence offered by plaintiff in support
23 of their Motion for Leave to Reopen Discovery as follows:
24 The evidence submitted to the court must meet all statutory requirements for
25 admissibility of evidence at trial. In order to be admissible, the evidence must be from
26 competent witnesses having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein, rather than
27 hearsay-or conclusions. Pajaro Valley Water Mgmt Agency v. McGrath(2W5) 128
28 Cal.App.4* 1093.
DEFENDANT BRJTSCHGl'S OBTECT1ONS TO EVIDENCE
FromlLUNDGREN/REYNOLDS 5302975077 07/2^2009 18:19 #062 P.011/026
1. Ms. Finelli's statements as to when meaningful discovery occurred in this case
is inadmissible hearsay and opinion testimony
Plaintiffs have offered as evidence the opinion of their counsel that "[mjeaningful
discovery did not really begin in this case until December 2008, when the first deposition was
taken." (Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 3:11-12; Declaration of Stephanie J. Finelli,
Paragraph 3). This is unsubstantiated hearsay. Ms. Finelli did not substitute into the, case
until on or about December 2008.
8 2. Ms. Finelli's statements as to when experts discovered compaction issues is
9 too vague to be considered relevant or material.
10 At paragraph 3 of her declaration, Ms. Finelli states that "shortly before" she disclosed
11 experts, plaintiffs' experts inspected plaintiffs' home. Ms. Finelli does not indicate what the
12 experts knew or were told before the inspection or even the date of the inspection. This
13 makes the allegation to be too vague to be relevant or material to the issues in this case.
14 3. Ms. Finelli's statements as to when experts discovered compaction issues is
15 hearsay.
16 At paragraph 3 of her declaration, Ms. Finelli states that plaintiffs' experts "began to
17 suspect that uncompacted fill had been placed under the foundation of the home" sometime
18 after the inspected the home. This declaration concerning plaintiffs' experts suspicions is
19 hearsay.
20 4. Ms. Finelli's statements as to the content of an undisclosed engineer's report
21 is inadmissible hearsay and violates the Best Evidence Rule.
22 At paragraph 4 of her declaration, Ms. Fineiii describes a report from an engineer that
23 purportedly stated that the soil under the house and garage slabs were not properly compacted.
24 First of all, this is opinion from an undisclosed expert. Second, Ms. Finelli's description of
25 the report is nothing more than hearsay. Further, the hearsay description of the report violates
26 the best evidence rule, which would require the court to be shown the actual report, not Ms.
27 Finelli's description of the report
28
DEFENDANT BRITSCHGI'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
FromlLUNDGREN/REYNOLDS 5302975077 07/2^2009 18:20 #062 P.012/026
i Based on the foregoing, defendant Ronald Brilschgi respectfully requests that this
2 court disallow the hearsay opinion testimony of Mr. Lee and the opinion testimony of Ms.
3 Finelli when ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Reopen Discovery.
4 Dated: My 27, 2009 LUNDGREN & REYNOLDS, LLP
5 4
By_
6 CRAIG N.
Attorneys for defendant, cross-complainant
7 and cross-defendant
RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT BRITSCHGI'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
FromlLUNDGREN/REYNOLDS 5302975077' 07/?~"2009 18:20 #062 P.013/026
1 Rodney Abbott, etaL V, Ronald Paul Britschgi, etal
Sacramento County Superior Court No. 07AS04450
2
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
3
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or
4 interested in this action. I am an employee of Lundgren and Reynolds, LLP and my business
address is 424 2nd Street, Suite A, Davis, California. On this day I caused to be. served the
5 following document(s):
6 DEFENDANT BRITSCHGI'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
1
1X1 By placing a true copy, in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United
8 States Post Office mail at Davis, California, addressed as set forth below. I am
4
familiar with this firm's practice whereby the mail, after being placed in a designated
9 area, is given the appropriate postage and is deposited in a U.S. mail box after the
close of the day's business.
10
r_H By personal delivery of a true copy to the person indicated and at the address set forth
11 below.
12 f~~1 By Federal Express Mail to the person and at the address set forth below.
13 EX] By transmitting a true copy by facsimile to the person and at the facsimile number set
forth below.
14
Stephanie J. Finelli Attorneyfor Plaintiffs
15 Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli Rodney Abbott, Florentine Abbott
1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500
16 Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX (916) 443-1511
17
Gregory K. Federico Attorney for defendant, cross-
18 Archer Norris Defendant and cross-complainant
655 University Avenue, #225 Richard Kirk Ruybalid, individually
19 Sacramento, CA 95825 and dba CA Construction
FAX (916) 646-5695
20
Richard D. Sopp Attorney for cross-defendant and
21 Wheatley Sopp, LLP cross-complainant
1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Cadre Design Group, Lie.
22 Folsom, CA 95630
FAX (916) 988-5296
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24
foregoing is true and correct.
25
Executed on July 27, 2009, at Davis, California.
26
27 SHAULAPATCHETT
28
I \craig's client files\bntschgi (abbott v)\pleadtngs\p$er doc
Preview
FromlLUNDGREN/REYNOLDS 5302975077 07/?7/2009 18:19 #062 P.010/026 DWGJNAL / }/ — — •* CRAIG N. LUNDGREN, Stale Bar 148842 Flfe6_ iNDORSED LUNDGREN & REYNOLDS, LLP 1 424 2nd Street, Suite A Davis, CA 95616 • JUL 27 2009 530.792.8800 530.297.5077 (fax) L KENNEDY DEPOTS CLERK Attorneys for Defendant RONALD PAUL BRJTSCHGI Individually and dba BRITSQHGI CONSTRUCTION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE ) CASE NO. 07AS04450 ABBOTT, ) 11 ) DEFENDANT BRITSCHGI'S Plaintiffs, ) OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN 12 ) SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' v. ) MOTION TO REOPEN 13 ) DISCOVERY RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, individually ) 14 and doing business as BRITSCHGI ) DATE: 8/7/09 CONSTRUCTION, RICHARD KIRK ) TIME: 9:00 A.M. 15 RUYBALID, individually and doing business ) DEPT: 54 as CA CONSTRUCTION, SURETY ) TRIAL DATE: 6/7/09 16 COMPANY OF THE PACIFIC, WESTERN ) SURETY COMPANY and DOES, 1 through 20,) BY FAX 17 inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 20 21 22 Defendant Ronald Paul Britschgi objects to the evidence offered by plaintiff in support 23 of their Motion for Leave to Reopen Discovery as follows: 24 The evidence submitted to the court must meet all statutory requirements for 25 admissibility of evidence at trial. In order to be admissible, the evidence must be from 26 competent witnesses having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein, rather than 27 hearsay-or conclusions. Pajaro Valley Water Mgmt Agency v. McGrath(2W5) 128 28 Cal.App.4* 1093. DEFENDANT BRJTSCHGl'S OBTECT1ONS TO EVIDENCE FromlLUNDGREN/REYNOLDS 5302975077 07/2^2009 18:19 #062 P.011/026 1. Ms. Finelli's statements as to when meaningful discovery occurred in this case is inadmissible hearsay and opinion testimony Plaintiffs have offered as evidence the opinion of their counsel that "[mjeaningful discovery did not really begin in this case until December 2008, when the first deposition was taken." (Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 3:11-12; Declaration of Stephanie J. Finelli, Paragraph 3). This is unsubstantiated hearsay. Ms. Finelli did not substitute into the, case until on or about December 2008. 8 2. Ms. Finelli's statements as to when experts discovered compaction issues is 9 too vague to be considered relevant or material. 10 At paragraph 3 of her declaration, Ms. Finelli states that "shortly before" she disclosed 11 experts, plaintiffs' experts inspected plaintiffs' home. Ms. Finelli does not indicate what the 12 experts knew or were told before the inspection or even the date of the inspection. This 13 makes the allegation to be too vague to be relevant or material to the issues in this case. 14 3. Ms. Finelli's statements as to when experts discovered compaction issues is 15 hearsay. 16 At paragraph 3 of her declaration, Ms. Finelli states that plaintiffs' experts "began to 17 suspect that uncompacted fill had been placed under the foundation of the home" sometime 18 after the inspected the home. This declaration concerning plaintiffs' experts suspicions is 19 hearsay. 20 4. Ms. Finelli's statements as to the content of an undisclosed engineer's report 21 is inadmissible hearsay and violates the Best Evidence Rule. 22 At paragraph 4 of her declaration, Ms. Fineiii describes a report from an engineer that 23 purportedly stated that the soil under the house and garage slabs were not properly compacted. 24 First of all, this is opinion from an undisclosed expert. Second, Ms. Finelli's description of 25 the report is nothing more than hearsay. Further, the hearsay description of the report violates 26 the best evidence rule, which would require the court to be shown the actual report, not Ms. 27 Finelli's description of the report 28 DEFENDANT BRITSCHGI'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FromlLUNDGREN/REYNOLDS 5302975077 07/2^2009 18:20 #062 P.012/026 i Based on the foregoing, defendant Ronald Brilschgi respectfully requests that this 2 court disallow the hearsay opinion testimony of Mr. Lee and the opinion testimony of Ms. 3 Finelli when ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Reopen Discovery. 4 Dated: My 27, 2009 LUNDGREN & REYNOLDS, LLP 5 4 By_ 6 CRAIG N. Attorneys for defendant, cross-complainant 7 and cross-defendant RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT BRITSCHGI'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FromlLUNDGREN/REYNOLDS 5302975077' 07/?~"2009 18:20 #062 P.013/026 1 Rodney Abbott, etaL V, Ronald Paul Britschgi, etal Sacramento County Superior Court No. 07AS04450 2 DECLARATION OF SERVICE 3 I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or 4 interested in this action. I am an employee of Lundgren and Reynolds, LLP and my business address is 424 2nd Street, Suite A, Davis, California. On this day I caused to be. served the 5 following document(s): 6 DEFENDANT BRITSCHGI'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TO REOPEN DISCOVERY 1 1X1 By placing a true copy, in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United 8 States Post Office mail at Davis, California, addressed as set forth below. I am 4 familiar with this firm's practice whereby the mail, after being placed in a designated 9 area, is given the appropriate postage and is deposited in a U.S. mail box after the close of the day's business. 10 r_H By personal delivery of a true copy to the person indicated and at the address set forth 11 below. 12 f~~1 By Federal Express Mail to the person and at the address set forth below. 13 EX] By transmitting a true copy by facsimile to the person and at the facsimile number set forth below. 14 Stephanie J. Finelli Attorneyfor Plaintiffs 15 Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli Rodney Abbott, Florentine Abbott 1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500 16 Sacramento, CA 95814 FAX (916) 443-1511 17 Gregory K. Federico Attorney for defendant, cross- 18 Archer Norris Defendant and cross-complainant 655 University Avenue, #225 Richard Kirk Ruybalid, individually 19 Sacramento, CA 95825 and dba CA Construction FAX (916) 646-5695 20 Richard D. Sopp Attorney for cross-defendant and 21 Wheatley Sopp, LLP cross-complainant 1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Cadre Design Group, Lie. 22 Folsom, CA 95630 FAX (916) 988-5296 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 foregoing is true and correct. 25 Executed on July 27, 2009, at Davis, California. 26 27 SHAULAPATCHETT 28 I \craig's client files\bntschgi (abbott v)\pleadtngs\p$er doc