Motion-Secondary: HARDY et al -v- RIOS, DVM et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Jill L. Ryther, Esq., SBN 266016
                                                                                  F i RY ai INC
                                                              superioged
     RYTHER LAW GROUP, LLP                                     COUNTY OF   *i
                                                                           SANE    aPeon
                                                                                      f i
     5777 W. Century Blvd. #1 110-2076                           SAN BERNARDING     f
     Los Angeles, CA 90045
     Phone: 310-751-4404                                             DEC 08 2021
     Fax: 310-773-9192

     Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
     JOHANNA BARLUND, ILLYA HARDY
     TOPLINE K9 SERVICES


                   SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                       FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO


10   ILLYA HARDY, an individual; JOHANNA              )   Case No. CIV DS 2002744
     BARLUND HARDY, an individual;
     TOPLINE K9 SERVICES,
                                                      )     Honorable John Nguyen,
11                                                    )     Dept. S28

12                   Plaintiffs,
                                                          Action Filing Date: January 27,2020
13           vs.
                                                          Trial Date: December 13, 2021

14   GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., an Individual;
     ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC; and                         PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
15   DOES    1- 50, inclusive,                            MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
                                                          EVIDENCE RE LAY OPINION
16                   Defendants.
                                                          TESTIMONY BY LAY WITNESSES, AND
17                                                        RE PERSONAL PREFERENCE
                                                          TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES
18
                                                          [OPPOSITON 3 OF 4]
19
20          Plaintiffs ILLYA HARDY, JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY, and TOPLINE K9
21
     SERVICES hereby file this Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine to exclude evidence re
22
     lay opinion testimony by lay witnesses and re personal preference testimony by expert witnesses.
23
            Defendants’ motion should be denied for three independent reasons. First, defendants are
24
     attempting to characterize Plaintiffs as laypeople regarding the training and breeding of
25
     Rottweilers and to preclude them from expressing their opinions of Chaya’s value. Plaintiffs are


      PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE LAY OPINION TESTIMONY BY
          LAY WITNESSES, AND RE PERSONAL PREFERENCE TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES
                                               1
not laypeople, as thei witness profiles and their testimony will confirm; and in any event, case

     law allows for property owners to opine on value under certain circumstances, leaving a jury to

     assess the weight of that evidence.

                Second, Defendants are trying to preclude regular everyday lay opinions about topics of

     common knowledge simply because they do not like those opinions. Case law makes clear that

     laypeople can opine on topics of common knowledge.

                Third, Defendants also are attempting to improperly control Plaintiffs’ veterinary expert

     witness testimony by precluding him from expressing opinions or preferences relating to

     veterinary medicine or to standards of care. There is no reasonable basis for precluding a person
10
     from testifying about any topic on which he is qualified and properly designated as an expert.
11

12   Here, too, an expert’s testimony, including opinions, should be left for a jury to decide as to their

13   weight.

14              Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion will be made and heard based upon

15   Defendants’ Notice, the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the pleadings and|
16   records on file with the Court in this action, matters in which the Court may take Judicial Notice,
17
     and other oral and documentary matters as may be properly before the Court at the time of the
18
     hearing.
19

20
     DATED: December 8, 2021                           RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
21                                                     RYTHER LAW GROUP

22

23                                                                      ¥
                                                                            f
                                                                            a   =
24                                                     JILL L. RYTHER
                                                       Attorney for Plaintiffs ILLYA HARDY,
25                                                     JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY,
                                                       TOPLINE K9 SERVICES



      PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE LAY OPINION TESTIMONY BY
          LAY WITNESSES, AND RE PERSONAL PREFERENCE TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES
                                                         2