On August 16, 2019 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Filed By: Robinson, Jay,
On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
Pineda, Hugo,
Robinson, Jay,
and
Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, Llc, A California Corporation,
Does 1-10,
Phillips & Jordan Environmental Services, Llc, A North Carolina Corporation,
Phillips & Jordan Inc,
Phillips & Jordan Inc.,
for (Other Employment Complaint Case)
in the District Court of Sacramento County.
Preview
N
FILED/ENDORSED
-
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP MAR 11 2024
SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733
E-Mail: Shane.Singh@]lewisbrisbois.com By-
GRACE E. MEHTA, SB# 327676 Y 8. CADDICK
N
E-Mail: Grace.Mehta@]lewisbrisbois.com SRy Slerk
2020 West E1 Camino Avenue, Suite 700
AW
Sacramento, California 95833
Telephone: 916.564.5400
Facsimile: 916.564.5444
B
Attorneys for Defendant, ASOMEO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
INDUSTRY, LLC
N
R
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
o
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
QO
e
=
JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
ek
individually and on behalf of all others
WN
similarly situated, DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO
e
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
e
A
BY FAX
Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
e
[Filed Concurrently With the Memorandum of
0NN
Vs. Points and Authorities,; Separate Statement,
e
Declaration of Grace E. Mehta,; Declaration of
Akan Ismaili]
e
ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a Date: August29,-2023 May 17, 2024
e
California Corporation and PHILLIPS & Time: 9:00 a.m.
JORDAN INC., a North Carolina Corporation | Dept.: 5423
e
0
and DOES 1-10,
Assigned For All Purposes:
N
O
Hon. Jill Talley Dept. 2% 23
Defendants.
N
=
Action Filed: August 16, 2019
Trial Date: None Set
N
WN
Defendant, ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC makes
N
the following objection in Opposition to Plaintiffs JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA’s
N
A
Motion for Summary Judgment.
N
U
vy
N
A
/11
N
N
/11
LEWIS
N
0
127202684.1 1
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
&SMIHLLP
ATIORNEYS AT LAW i SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE
1. Objections to Plaintiff’s Appendix of Evidence.
AW
Material Objected to Grounds for '6bjeétidh ~ Rulingon the
Objection
Objection No. 1 Lacks foundation. Plaintiffs offer five
pages of a deposition transcript as
1. Relevant Portions of the support evidence but fails to make Sustained
Deposition of Lawrence any efforts to authenticate the
N
Kahn. transcript or the excerpts. (Evid. Overruled
Code §§ 702, subd., (a), 800; Evid.
9
Code §§ 1400-1401.) Inadmissible
Hearsay. (Evid Code § 1200.)
0
Judge
o
Objection No. 2 These records lack foundation as they
are unauthenticated. (Evid. Code §§
2. AERI Sample Employee 702, subd., (a), 800; Evid. Code §§ Sustained
=
ke
Records, Set 1 1400-1401.) Inadmissible Hearsay.
(Evid Code § 1200.) Overruled
N
Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to
indicate what Exhibit No. “Set 1”7
W
refers and also fails to number the Judge
pages of the set so it is unclear what
o
R
the cited page numbers refer to
throughout Plaintiffs Motion and
N
o
Separate Statement. Moreover, half
SN
of the records are blurry and
e
incredibly difficult to read.
e
NN
Objection No. 3 These records lack foundation as they Sustained
are unauthenticated. (Evid. Code §§
o
3. AERI Sample Employee 702, subd., (a), 800; Evid. Code §§ Overruled
Records, Set 2 1400-1401.) Inadmissible Hearsay.
e
Y
(Evid Code § 1200.)
N
=S
Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to Judge
indicate what Exhibit No. “Set 2”
N
refers and also fails to number the
pages of the set so it is unclear what
N
WN
the cited page numbers refer to
throughout Plaintiffs Motion and
N
Separate Statement. Moreover, half
of the records are blurry and
N
A
incredibly difficult to read.
N
N
Objection No. 4 These records lack foundation as they Sustained
are unauthenticated. (Evid. Code §§
N
S
4. AERI Sample Employee 702, subd., (a), 800; Evid. Code §§ Overruled
Records, Set 4 1400-1401.) Inadmissible Hearsay.
N
LEWIS
BN
W
127202684.1
BRISBOIS 2
BISGAARD DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
&SMIHLLP
ATIORNEYS AT LAW SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-
(Evid Code § 1200.)
Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to Judge
N
indicate what Exhibit No. “Set 4”
refers and also fails to number the
W
pages of the set so it is unclear what
the cited page numbers refer to
A
throughout Plaintiffs Motion and
Separate Statement. Moreover, half
U
of the records are blurry and
incredibly difficult to read.
N
N
0
DATED: August 15, 2023 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
o S
e
WNN=
ek
By:
SHANE SINGH
Attorneys for Defendant, ASOMEO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
e
R
INDUSTRY, LLC
o
N
o
NN
o
o
o
N
=S
N
N
WN
N
N
A
N
I
N
A
I
NN
O
127202684.1
BRISBOIS 3
BISGAARD DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
&SMIH LIP
v ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Document Filed Date
March 11, 2024
Case Filing Date
August 16, 2019
Category
(Other Employment Complaint Case)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
N FILED/ENDORSED - LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP MAR 11 2024 SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733 E-Mail: Shane.Singh@]lewisbrisbois.com By- GRACE E. MEHTA, SB# 327676 Y 8. CADDICK N E-Mail: Grace.Mehta@]lewisbrisbois.com SRy Slerk 2020 West E1 Camino Avenue, Suite 700 AW Sacramento, California 95833 Telephone: 916.564.5400 Facsimile: 916.564.5444 B Attorneys for Defendant, ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC N R SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA o COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO QO e = JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS ek individually and on behalf of all others WN similarly situated, DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO e EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ e A BY FAX Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT e [Filed Concurrently With the Memorandum of 0NN Vs. Points and Authorities,; Separate Statement, e Declaration of Grace E. Mehta,; Declaration of Akan Ismaili] e ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a Date: August29,-2023 May 17, 2024 e California Corporation and PHILLIPS & Time: 9:00 a.m. JORDAN INC., a North Carolina Corporation | Dept.: 5423 e 0 and DOES 1-10, Assigned For All Purposes: N O Hon. Jill Talley Dept. 2% 23 Defendants. N = Action Filed: August 16, 2019 Trial Date: None Set N WN Defendant, ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC makes N the following objection in Opposition to Plaintiffs JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA’s N A Motion for Summary Judgment. N U vy N A /11 N N /11 LEWIS N 0 127202684.1 1 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR &SMIHLLP ATIORNEYS AT LAW i SUMMARY JUDGMENT - OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE 1. Objections to Plaintiff’s Appendix of Evidence. AW Material Objected to Grounds for '6bjeétidh ~ Rulingon the Objection Objection No. 1 Lacks foundation. Plaintiffs offer five pages of a deposition transcript as 1. Relevant Portions of the support evidence but fails to make Sustained Deposition of Lawrence any efforts to authenticate the N Kahn. transcript or the excerpts. (Evid. Overruled Code §§ 702, subd., (a), 800; Evid. 9 Code §§ 1400-1401.) Inadmissible Hearsay. (Evid Code § 1200.) 0 Judge o Objection No. 2 These records lack foundation as they are unauthenticated. (Evid. Code §§ 2. AERI Sample Employee 702, subd., (a), 800; Evid. Code §§ Sustained = ke Records, Set 1 1400-1401.) Inadmissible Hearsay. (Evid Code § 1200.) Overruled N Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to indicate what Exhibit No. “Set 1”7 W refers and also fails to number the Judge pages of the set so it is unclear what o R the cited page numbers refer to throughout Plaintiffs Motion and N o Separate Statement. Moreover, half SN of the records are blurry and e incredibly difficult to read. e NN Objection No. 3 These records lack foundation as they Sustained are unauthenticated. (Evid. Code §§ o 3. AERI Sample Employee 702, subd., (a), 800; Evid. Code §§ Overruled Records, Set 2 1400-1401.) Inadmissible Hearsay. e Y (Evid Code § 1200.) N =S Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to Judge indicate what Exhibit No. “Set 2” N refers and also fails to number the pages of the set so it is unclear what N WN the cited page numbers refer to throughout Plaintiffs Motion and N Separate Statement. Moreover, half of the records are blurry and N A incredibly difficult to read. N N Objection No. 4 These records lack foundation as they Sustained are unauthenticated. (Evid. Code §§ N S 4. AERI Sample Employee 702, subd., (a), 800; Evid. Code §§ Overruled Records, Set 4 1400-1401.) Inadmissible Hearsay. N LEWIS BN W 127202684.1 BRISBOIS 2 BISGAARD DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR &SMIHLLP ATIORNEYS AT LAW SUMMARY JUDGMENT - (Evid Code § 1200.) Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to Judge N indicate what Exhibit No. “Set 4” refers and also fails to number the W pages of the set so it is unclear what the cited page numbers refer to A throughout Plaintiffs Motion and Separate Statement. Moreover, half U of the records are blurry and incredibly difficult to read. N N 0 DATED: August 15, 2023 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP o S e WNN= ek By: SHANE SINGH Attorneys for Defendant, ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION e R INDUSTRY, LLC o N o NN o o o N =S N N WN N N A N I N A I NN O 127202684.1 BRISBOIS 3 BISGAARD DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR &SMIH LIP v ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUMMARY JUDGMENT