Preview
1 Richard W Freeman, Jr (State Bar No. 50533)
Scott S Brooks (State Bar No 267320)
2 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700.
3 Concord, California 94520-7982
Phone. 925 356 8200 • Fax: 925 356 8250
4
Attorneys for Defendant, R4C0RP, a California Corporation
5
Dy j^_Wnit_fi_s!d
6 Dopbly Oeik
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
11 FLORENTINE AND RODNEY ABBOTT, CASENO 07AS04450
< 8; 12 Plaintiffs, REPLY OF DEFENDANT R4C0RP TO
LU
UJ r
!=< PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION
CQ (/) ll 13 V. IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
z • DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT
Z 15 o:
z ew
Z »«
14 R4C0RP, a California Corporation, et a!.. PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY
15 Defendant Date January 7, 2011
O HI
Time 10.00 a.m
O 9
zS 16 Dept 43
Q oI AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
O
O 17 Trial January 17,2011
18
19 I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
20 This Motion in Limine seeks to exclude any and all writings, as defined in Evidence
21 Code section 250, not previously identified or produced by the parties, as well as their
22 respective experts, and to instruct the parties, their experts, and their counsel not to
23 examine any witness concerning such writing or evidence dunng the time of trial
24 II. ARGUMENT
25 This Court should exclude all evidence not previously identified of produced dunng
26 discovery Plaintiffs are correct in stating that R4Corp did not perform discovery in this
27 matter Indeed, Plaintiffs recently amended their Complaint to name R4Corp as a party
28 to this litigation on November 5, 2010, merely two and one-half months before trial
LEGAL 05936-0065/1578297 1
-1-
REPLY OF DEFENDANT R4C0RP TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY
1 Consequently, R4Corp has not had the ability to participate in any meaningful discovery
2 in this matter It therefore is not requesting this Court to exclude evidence not produced
3 to it during discovery, as Plaintiffs suggest Rather, as explicitly stated in its Motion,
4 R4Corp seeks to exclude any and all writings, as defined in Evidence Code section 250,
5 not previously identified or produced by the parties, as well as their respective experts,
6 and instructing the parties, their experts, and their counsel not to examine any witness
7 concerning such wnting or evidence during the time of tnal Such evidence is properly
8 excluded under California Evidence Code section 352
9 The introduction of such evidence at trial would be unduly prejudicial R4Corp has
10 had minimal time to review and familianze itself with the voluminous evidence already
11 produced over the course of this matter Introduction of new evidence not previously
12 produced would necessitate an undue consumption of time as well as force R4Corp to
UJ i^ 5
Ul • t 6 " 13 familiarize itself with the new evidence on very short notice Finally, precluding the
m. «2S!
V _oz • 14 introduction of evidence not produced during discovery prevents surpnse evidence.
z awo 5
z S-wtg
15 III. CONCLUSION
16 Based upon the above, R4C0RP respectfully requests this Court GRANT its
5
(/5 ^z
oO o
£
Q
o
•» O y 17 motion to exclude evidence including writings and testimony not produced dunng
o
18 discovery and/or pursuant to court order.
19 DATED January _L_, 2011 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
20
21 By
RICHARD W. FREEMAN, JR
22 SCOTTS BROOKS
Attorneys for Defendant, R4C0RP, a California
23 Corporation
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL 05936-0065/1578297 1 -2-
REPLY OF DEFENDANT R4C0RP TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
3 I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California I am over the
age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1401
4 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700, Concord, California 94520-7982.
5 On January 6, 2011, I served the following document(s) descnbed as REPLY OF
DEFENDANT R4C0RP TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO
6 EXCLUDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY on the
interested parties in this action as follows
7
SEE ATTACHED LIST
8
BY MAIL: I placed true copies ofthe foregoing document(s) enclosed in sealed
9 envelopes addressed as shown on the Service List I am "readily familiar" with Wood,
Smith, Henning & Berman's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for
10 mailing with the United States Postal Service Under that practice, it would be deposited
with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business
Q.
_J
11 Such envelope(s) were placed for collection and mailing with postage thereon fully
_1
z
prepaid at Concord, California, on that same day following ordinary business practices
<
"^ S m 12 (Code Civ Proc. §1013, subd (a) and 1013a(3))
tt
m 13 BY FACSIMILE: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile pursuant to
CQ
? :ioz .
OS Rule 2 306 of the California Rules of Court The telephone number of the sending
5 ra a a: „ 14 facsimile machine was 925 356 8250 The name(s) and facsimile machine telephone
Z em O S
z |«i3 number(s) of the person(s) sen/ed are set forth in the service list. The document was
I i l E 2 rf
Preview
1 Richard W Freeman, Jr (State Bar No. 50533) Scott S Brooks (State Bar No 267320) 2 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700. 3 Concord, California 94520-7982 Phone. 925 356 8200 • Fax: 925 356 8250 4 Attorneys for Defendant, R4C0RP, a California Corporation 5 Dy j^_Wnit_fi_s!d 6 Dopbly Oeik 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 11 FLORENTINE AND RODNEY ABBOTT, CASENO 07AS04450 < 8; 12 Plaintiffs, REPLY OF DEFENDANT R4C0RP TO LU UJ r !=< PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION CQ (/) ll 13 V. IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE z • DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT Z 15 o: z ew Z »« 14 R4C0RP, a California Corporation, et a!.. PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY 15 Defendant Date January 7, 2011 O HI Time 10.00 a.m O 9 zS 16 Dept 43 Q oI AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS O O 17 Trial January 17,2011 18 19 I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 20 This Motion in Limine seeks to exclude any and all writings, as defined in Evidence 21 Code section 250, not previously identified or produced by the parties, as well as their 22 respective experts, and to instruct the parties, their experts, and their counsel not to 23 examine any witness concerning such writing or evidence dunng the time of trial 24 II. ARGUMENT 25 This Court should exclude all evidence not previously identified of produced dunng 26 discovery Plaintiffs are correct in stating that R4Corp did not perform discovery in this 27 matter Indeed, Plaintiffs recently amended their Complaint to name R4Corp as a party 28 to this litigation on November 5, 2010, merely two and one-half months before trial LEGAL 05936-0065/1578297 1 -1- REPLY OF DEFENDANT R4C0RP TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY 1 Consequently, R4Corp has not had the ability to participate in any meaningful discovery 2 in this matter It therefore is not requesting this Court to exclude evidence not produced 3 to it during discovery, as Plaintiffs suggest Rather, as explicitly stated in its Motion, 4 R4Corp seeks to exclude any and all writings, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, 5 not previously identified or produced by the parties, as well as their respective experts, 6 and instructing the parties, their experts, and their counsel not to examine any witness 7 concerning such wnting or evidence during the time of tnal Such evidence is properly 8 excluded under California Evidence Code section 352 9 The introduction of such evidence at trial would be unduly prejudicial R4Corp has 10 had minimal time to review and familianze itself with the voluminous evidence already 11 produced over the course of this matter Introduction of new evidence not previously 12 produced would necessitate an undue consumption of time as well as force R4Corp to UJ i^ 5 Ul • t 6 " 13 familiarize itself with the new evidence on very short notice Finally, precluding the m. «2S! V _oz • 14 introduction of evidence not produced during discovery prevents surpnse evidence. z awo 5 z S-wtg 15 III. CONCLUSION 16 Based upon the above, R4C0RP respectfully requests this Court GRANT its 5 (/5 ^z oO o £ Q o •» O y 17 motion to exclude evidence including writings and testimony not produced dunng o 18 discovery and/or pursuant to court order. 19 DATED January _L_, 2011 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 20 21 By RICHARD W. FREEMAN, JR 22 SCOTTS BROOKS Attorneys for Defendant, R4C0RP, a California 23 Corporation 24 25 26 27 28 LEGAL 05936-0065/1578297 1 -2- REPLY OF DEFENDANT R4C0RP TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 3 I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1401 4 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700, Concord, California 94520-7982. 5 On January 6, 2011, I served the following document(s) descnbed as REPLY OF DEFENDANT R4C0RP TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO 6 EXCLUDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY on the interested parties in this action as follows 7 SEE ATTACHED LIST 8 BY MAIL: I placed true copies ofthe foregoing document(s) enclosed in sealed 9 envelopes addressed as shown on the Service List I am "readily familiar" with Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for 10 mailing with the United States Postal Service Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business Q. _J 11 Such envelope(s) were placed for collection and mailing with postage thereon fully _1 z prepaid at Concord, California, on that same day following ordinary business practices < "^ S m 12 (Code Civ Proc. §1013, subd (a) and 1013a(3)) tt m 13 BY FACSIMILE: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile pursuant to CQ ? :ioz . OS Rule 2 306 of the California Rules of Court The telephone number of the sending 5 ra a a: „ 14 facsimile machine was 925 356 8250 The name(s) and facsimile machine telephone Z em O S z |«i3 number(s) of the person(s) sen/ed are set forth in the service list. The document was I i l E 2 rf