No Value: Lisa Keith vs Celeste White et al

On October 25, 2022 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Keith, Lisa, and Does 1-50, Inclusive, The Valley Rock Foundation, Valley Rock Foundation, White, Celeste, White, Robert, for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited (06) in the District Court of Napa County.

Preview
1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081)
jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com
2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035)
kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com
3
EMILY ROSE MARGOLIS (SBN 324089)
4 emily.margolis@us.dlapiper.com
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
5 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
6 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501
7
Attorneys for Defendants
8 CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and
THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION
9

10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA
12

13
LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269
14
Plaintiff,
15 DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
v.
16
CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT Judge: Hon. Cynthia P. Smith
17 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK Dept.: A
FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49
18 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022
and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, FAC Filed: March 8, 2023
19 Trial Date: April 2, 2024
Defendants.
20

28
-1-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 Based on the trial management conference that the Court conducted on March 28 and 29,

2 2024, Defendants offer this Second Supplement to address the open issues based on the Court’s

3 findings.

4 I. INTRODUCTION

5 The fundamental issue at bar relates to specific hearsay information about which Plaintiff’s

6 putative expert, Jessie Stricchiola, would testify at trial if permitted by the Court. The Court

7 should not permit the introduction of the hearsay information—whether in the form of oral

8 testimony or documents—because it is squarely contrary to law and poses material unfair

9 prejudice to Defendants.

10 Although much of the Court’s hearings revolved around the reports generated from an

11 Internet website referred to as “Meltwater,” there are actually multiple documents at issue in

12 Stricchiola’s proposed testimony that have the same hearsay problems. In total, the documents are:

13 1. Two hearsay reports printed from something called the “Meltwater Impact” website

14 (collectively, “Meltwater Report”) (Plf. Tr. Exs. 41 and 44) (annexed hereto as

15 Attachments A and B);

16 2. A multiple-level hearsay report provided to Ms. Stricchiola by Plaintiff’s counsel,

17 which appears to have been originally generated from another out-of-state person

18 altogether (Plaintiff’s ex-boyfriend Richard Marshall of Indianapolis, Indiana,

19 who has refused to be deposed by Defendants)1, with alleged origins from an

20 organization apparently called Trail Runner International (“Trail Runner Report”)

22
1
Defendants served a deposition and document subpoena on Marshall on February 12,
23 2024, which had been issued by the Clerk of Marion County, Indiana, where he resides. But he
repeatedly dodged Defendants’ attempts to take his deposition by repeatedly requesting to
24 reschedule the deposition—and, eventually, claiming at the last moment that he was suddenly
25 “unavailable” at any time before trial. (See Emails between R. Marshall and DLA Piper and Proof
of Service, annexed hereto as Attachments F and G.) Defendants’ counsel requested assistance
26 from Plaintiff’s counsel with scheduling Marshall’s deposition, but Plaintiff’s counsel never
responded to this request and Marshall ultimately refused to sit for deposition—even on the date
27 and time which he had specifically requested—in violation of the court-ordered subpoena.
Marshall also refused to produce any documents responsive to the subpoena’s document requests.
28 -2-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 (Plf. Tr. Ex. 47) (annexed hereto as Attachment C); and

2 3. Hearsay posts allegedly from the social media website X (formerly called Twitter),

3 obtained by Stricchiola. (Plf. Tr. Exs. 42 and 43) (annexed hereto as Attachments D

4 and E).

5 The law does not permit the introduction of these documents or oral testimony about the

6 information in these documents.

7 II. ARGUMENT

8 A. The Meltwater Report, Trail Runner Report, and X Posts are Inadmissible
Hearsay
9

10 In People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, the Court made clear that case-specific out-of-

11 court statements related by an expert must be evaluated as hearsay:

12 In sum, we adopt the following rule: When any expert relates to the jury case-
specific out-of-court statements, and treats the contents of those statements as true
13 and accurate to support the expert’s opinion, the statements are hearsay. It cannot
14 logically be maintained that the statements are not being admitted for their truth.

15 (Id. at 686.)

16 According to the Sanchez Court, case-specific facts are “those relating to the particular

17 events and participants alleged to have been involved in the case being tried.” (Id. at 676

18 [emphasis added].) To avoid any confusion, Sanchez made clear to distinguish “case-specific

19 hearsay” from traditional source material upon which experts routinely rely. (See id. at 686

20 [“There is a distinction to be made between allowing an expert to describe the type or source of

21 the matter relied upon as opposed to presenting, as fact, case-specific hearsay that does not

22 otherwise fall under a statutory exception.”].) In a scenario, like here, where an expert is proposing

23 to testify about case-specific hearsay, the traditional hearsay rules apply. (See id. [“What an expert

24 cannot do is relate as true case-specific facts asserted in hearsay statements, unless they are

25 independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception.”].)

26 In this case, the Meltwater Report, Trail Runner Report, and X posts are the types of case-

27 specific hearsay information that Sanchez squarely rejects: [1] the documents contain case-specific

28 -3-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 facts for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted; [2] the hearsay information will

2 not be independently proven by competent evidence; [3] there is no hearsay exception; and [4] the

3 information does not qualify as “non-hearsay.”

4 1. The Documents Contain Case-Specific Facts

5 There can be no serious debate as to whether the Meltwater Report, the Trail Runner

6 Report, and the X posts contain case-specific facts. Nor can there be any real dispute whether

7 Plaintiff proposes to use the information (whether through oral testimony or the documents

8 themselves) for the truth of the matter asserted. (See, e.g., Jessie Stricchiola Report (annexed

9 hereto as Attachment H) at ¶17 [“I estimate that the PRNewswire press release was published on

10 approximately 123 media outlets (websites), and the BusinessWire press release was published on

11 approximately 128 media outlets (websites)”].) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded this

12 point in oral argument by referring to the Meltwater Report (and, for that matter, the Trail Runner

13 Report) as “verifiable data” and “proof of the instances” of alleged publications of the press

14 release. The X posts suffer from the same problem because Plaintiff intends to use those alleged

15 posts as evidence of instances of the publication of the press release.

16 2. The Hearsay Information Will Not Be Independently Proven

17 Plaintiff has identified no means through which she can independently introduce the

18 underlying information in the Meltwater Reports, the screenshots of the X posts, or the Trail

19 Runner Report obtained by Plaintiff’s ex-boyfriend, Richard Marshall, who refused to be deposed

20 in this case. In other words, Plaintiff has no witnesses or evidence to establish or corroborate the

21 reports or the X posts—no one from the Meltwater website, no one from the Trail Runner

22 organization, and no one from X. The only source of the information as to all of these documents

23 are Stricchiola, Plaintiff’s counsel, and ex-boyfriend Marshall—not a single one of them is a

24 competent fact witness for these purposes.

25 One example highlights the danger of dispensing with the requirement that evidence be

26 independently proven. At deposition, Stricchiola testified that the Trail Runner Report—originally

27 obtained for Plaintiff by Marshall—was provided to her by Plaintiff’s own attorneys. (See

28 -4-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 Deposition Transcript of Jessie Stricchiola [03/15/2024] [“Stricchiola Dep. Tr.”] at 64:6-19

2 [testifying that the Trail Runner Report was “provided” to Stricchiola by Plaintiff’s counsel].)2

3 The circumstances of the Trail Runner Report is an absolute mystery—there is no evidence of any

4 kind about what it is or whether the information is correct.3 Yet, Plaintiff’s counsel asks this Court

5 to allow Stricchiola to testify that the numbers of “total media hits” from the Trail Runner Report,

6 and Meltwater reports it led her to obtain, are true and valid simply because it was handed to her

7 and she used it. Allowing Plaintiff’s counsel to create evidence and disguise it as otherwise

8 admissible evidence through a putative expert renders meaningless the rules of evidence.

9 3. No Hearsay Exception Applies to the Documents

10 Under well-established hearsay analysis, the documents are plainly inadmissible because

11 they do not have any applicable hearsay exception:

12  Business Records. Plaintiff has not proffered any evidence that the documents
13 satisfy the four factors to establish business records. (Evid. Code, § 1271.) Under subdivision (a),

14 Plaintiff has no basis to argue (or to prove) that the documents were “made in the regular course of

15 a business.” Nor is there evidence that any of the documents were “made at or near the time of the

16 act, condition, or event” as required by subdivision (b). Indeed, as Stricchiola herself admitted

17 during deposition on March 15, 2024, she only received the documents (or otherwise researched

18 them on the Internet) recently after her engagement in this matter—which is approximately three

19 years after the “time of the act, condition or event” of the press release. (See Attachment I

20 [Stricchiola Dep. Tr.] at 47:3-48:11.) Similarly, under subdivision (c), Plaintiff does not have a

21 custodian to testify to the documents’ authenticity—including its “identity and the mode of its

22 preparation.” Plaintiff’s only witness is Stricchiola. Finally, under subdivision (d), the “sources of

23 information” and the “time of preparation” provide no indicia of “trustworthiness.” For example,

24
2
25 Excerpts of the Stricchiola deposition transcript cited in this Second Supplement are
collectively annexed as Attachment I.
26
3
Plaintiff testified that ex-boyfriend Marshall gave her the Trail Runner Report. (Tr. Ex.
27 176 [Keith Dep. Tr.], 209:12-24 [testifying about Trail Runner Report, Dep. Ex. 28].) Assuming
as true, where or how Marshall obtained this mystery document is unknown.
28 -5-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 Stricchiola testified at deposition that she has never previously used Meltwater (see Attachment I

2 [Stricchiola Dep. Tr.] at 49:11-13) and the Trail Runner report was provided to her by Plaintiff’s

3 counsel (id. at 47:3-18). And the passage of time only erodes any reliability.

4  Tabulation Statement. Plaintiff has not proffered any basis that the documents
5 are admissible as “evidence of a statement, other than an opinion, contained in a tabulation, list,

6 directory, register, or other published compilation is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if

7 the compilation is generally used and relied upon as accurate in the course of a business as defined

8 in section 1270.” (Evid Code, § 1340.) To be sure, courts hold that online databases do not fall

9 under the hearsay exception in Section 1340. (See, e.g., People v Franzen (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th

10 1193, 1209 [holding trial court erred in admitting evidence from a website and stating “the history,

11 language, and rationale of section 1340 suggest that the exception contemplates an organized,

12 edited presentation of a finite quantity of information that, if not printed on paper, has been

13 recorded and circulated in some fixed form analogous to printing”].) Indeed, the Franzen court

14 warned against applying section 1340 to online databases:

15 To treat a database as a published compilation merely because it is accessible
through a Web site would dramatically undermine the delicate balance of
16 competing policies reflected in the hearsay rule, its exceptions, and the particular
17 exception here under scrutiny. It is common knowledge by now that the World
Wide Web, and more generally the Internet, provides ready access to
18 information of all shades and degrees of accuracy, from the indisputably true to
the inarguably false. The Internet contains, or more accurately is connected to
19
and thus capable of conveying, a large and growing part of all of the recordable
20 information in existence. Some of this information is as reliable as any traditional
source of information. But some of it would be almost universally considered not
21 only unreliable but extravagantly untrue.
22 (Franzen, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at 1211-12 [emphasis added].) This warning applies in full

23 force to the facts of this case.

24 B. The Documents Do Not Qualify as Non-Hearsay

25 Plaintiff’s counsel has suggested to the Court that the documents are essentially “non-

26 hearsay” because, at least as to the Meltwater Report, the source is some kind of software tool. As

27 an initial matter, the conjecture from Plaintiff’s counsel characterizing Meltwater is neither

28 -6-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 accurate nor actual evidence upon which the Court can rely in rendering a ruling. And as a legal

2 matter, the assertion by Plaintiff’s counsel is without any merit in any event.

3 The concept of “non-hearsay” applies to things that are incapable of making “statements.”

4 For instance, California courts have held that machines cannot make hearsay statements, and

5 therefore computer data are not hearsay. (See Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at 690 n.16.)4 The rule

6 also applies to photographs taken by a digital camera, instrument readouts, and raw data generated

7 by machines. (See People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 274 [collecting cases].) In contrast,

8 reports that describe machine-produced data and also report facts relating to past events and

9 human actions can constitute hearsay. (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at 664.) This is particularly true

10 when such reports are “created solely for an evidentiary purpose.” (Id.)

11 In this case, none of the markers of “non-hearsay” are present—especially as it relates to

12 the Meltwater Report, on which the Court has put much of the focus at its two hearings.

13 1. The Meltwater Report Is Not an Instrument Read-Out

14 Plaintiff has offered no evidence to show that the Meltwater Report is computer-generated

15 information akin to a readout from an instrument. In reality, Stricchiola described the Meltwater

16 website as a “free public-facing system” that “publicly scour[s] the web to see where things

17 showed up.” (See Attachment I [Stricchiola Dep. Tr.] at 48:23-24, 49:2-10.) Stricchiola did not

18 provide any other description of how Meltwater obtains its data or generates its reports—nor could

19 she as she had never used it before her retention by Plaintiff. (See id. at 49:11-13 [“Q: Have you

20 used Meltwater Impact before this engagement? A: No, I have not.”; see also id. at 50:14-51:4

21 [testifying that she has “only relied on the direct information from the press release distributing

22 service to examine the performance of that press release, not a third-party entity like—like

23 Meltwater.”].) With no reliable explanation about how Meltwater works, where it obtains its data,

25 4
If computer-generated information is not offered for its truth, it is not hearsay. (People v.
26 Lund (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1139-44 [finding that computer database information was
admissible because it was only offered to explain investigative process].) Here, however, Plaintiff
27 plainly seeks to admit the Meltwater reports and related testimony in order to assert that the
reports’ content is true.
28 -7-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 whether its data is reliable, or how the data in Plaintiff’s reports was generated, the Court cannot

2 conclude that the Meltwater reports are non-hearsay machine-generated information.

3 On its face, the Meltwater Report is not just raw data—rather, it purports to establish facts

4 relating to this specific case. (See Attachments A and B [Meltwater Reports] [asserting that “[t]his

5 story” has been published by “123 news outlets” and “128 news outlets”].) And, to be sure, the

6 Meltwater Report was indisputably “created solely for an evidentiary purpose” at this trial, which

7 is exactly what concerned the Sanchez Court. (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at 664; see also

8 Attachment I [Stricchiola Dep. Tr.] at 47:6-16 [“So when looking at the materials counsel sent …

9 there was a document they provide that contained data that my understanding is it came from

10 Meltwater Impact website, so I … went to the Meltwater website to see if I could recreate that”].)

11 2. The Meltwater Website is Not a Software Tool or Methodology

12 Meltwater (or Trail Runner, for that matter) is not a software tool or methodology on

13 which Stricchiola relies in her field. Experts may relay the basis or “matter” upon which their

14 opinions rest so long as that basis is “general knowledge among those in the expert’s field.”

15 (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at 676-77.) For example, in People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th

16 16, 27, an expert who used a database to identify a type of pill could testify about his use of that

17 database as the basis for his opinion because in so doing the expert was applying “a methodology

18 commonly used by experts in his field for analysis.” (Veamatahau, supra, 9 Cal.5th at 29.) There,

19 the court held that the expert was not simply conveying hearsay information from the database to

20 the jury but was, instead, properly using the database as a tool to identify the drugs, just like an

21 expert examining a car accident might measure skid marks to conclude the speed a car was

22 traveling before an accident. (Id.)

23 In contrast, here, Meltwater is not a methodology commonly used by experts in

24 Stricchiola’s field of online marketing. (See Attachment I [Stricchiola Dep. Tr.] at 50:2-6 [Q:

25 Have you used this sort of service before? A: You know, in the past, I believe we have, but,

26 generally speaking, on the press release side, I mean, clients are the ones who manage these

27 accounts.”] [emphasis added]; see also id. at 47:3-18 [testifying that she only visited the

28 -8-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 Meltwater website at the direction of Plaintiff’s counsel].) But even if the Meltwater website were

2 some kind of tool or known methodology or computer-generated information, such evidence is

3 still only admissible as non-hearsay to the extent it is shown to be reliable.

4 This Court’s citation at its March 29, 2024, hearing to People v. Hawkins (2002) 98

5 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1449, underscores the highly prejudicial unreliability of Meltwater’s

6 information.5 In Hawkins, the appellate court considered whether the trial court had erred by

7 admitting printouts of computer access times, which were used as evidence to show a criminal

8 defendant had committed trade secret theft of source code. (See id. at 1447-52.) In ruling that

9 records stating the time and date of access to the computer were admissible, the court specifically

10 determined that the computer had been “examined” and “found to be functional” by a computer

11 expert. (Id. at 1449-50 [“[T]he true test for admissibility of a printout reflecting a computer’s

12 internal operations is … whether the computer was operating properly at the time of the

13 printout.”].)

14 In this case, no evidence exists as to whether or how Meltwater works to show that its

15 reliability has been tested and established. Stricchiola even conceded that the Meltwater Report

16 contains indicia of unreliability. For example, where she had independently located instances of

17 the Press Release having been posted on social media platforms, Meltwater—inexplicably—

18 reported zero social media shares. (See Attachment I [Stricchiola Dep. Tr.] at 70:4-71:12 [“Q: And

19 then you indicated that the social shares when you went into Meltwater’s data indicated zero…this

20 particular press release was tweeted, I think, you noted three tweets. Would that not be included in

21 the social share? A: So I would assume that each…I would assume that any shares on social are

22 going to be tracked within each of these platforms in their analytics”.]) This example highlights

23 the inherent unreliability of a hearsay document with multiple levels of hearsay. Moreover,

25 5
Although Hawkins supports the exclusion of the hearsay documents in this case, the
26 Hawkins decision may very well have been reversed today in light of Sanchez, which occurred 14
years later. Hawkins is therefore only instructive as to the determination of reliability of computer-
27 generated information separate from whether it is admissible under Sanchez.
28 -9-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 Stricchiola conceded she did not independently verify all of the report’s contents. (See id. at

2 51:14-21.) Instead, Stricchiola has repeatedly emphasized that the only reliable source of this data

3 would be the distributors of the Press Release.6 Thus, even if the Meltwater data were computer-

4 generated information (which it is not), it has not been examined for reliability such that it can be

5 admitted for its truth.

6 C. Other Bases to Exclude the Hearsay Evidence

7 1. There is No Relevance in Light of Court’s Ruling on Defendants’
Motion in Limine No. 1
8

9 The Meltwater Report is also irrelevant given the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion in

10 Limine No. 1. The Court held that, for purposes of the liquidated damages provision,

11 “communication” is not “the number of recipients” of a press release. (See Attachment J [Rough

12 Transcript of Trial Management Conference] at 109:13-20 & 114:7-14.) Plaintiff’s only purpose is

13 to use the Meltwater Report for the unreliable truth of the matter asserted—that is, that the press

14 release was purportedly published on hundreds of websites. However, even Stricchiola conceded

15 that the Meltwater website works by “publicly scouring the web to see where things showed up”—

16 that is, the recipients of the press release. (See Attachment I [Striccihola Dep. Tr.] at 49:2-10.) It

17 does not show anything about Defendants’ communications. Plaintiff has no evidence—from

18 Meltwater, Stricchiola, or otherwise—that any publication of the press release identified by

19 Meltwater came from PRNewswire or Business Wire (versus any other source forwarding the

20 press release, or other methods by which publications may have obtained it).

21
6
22 (See id. at 52:15-16 [testifying that the distributor is “where you get accurate and actual
statistics and data from their analytics”] [emphasis added]; 52:10-16 [“[T]hat is something you
23 would only get within the actual interface, the distributor’s platform”]; 58:11-16 [“[E]verything
that you would see within the user interface from a distributor side, like PR Newswire or Business
24 Wire, that all pertains to distribution, and you can only get those granular metrics that all of those
25 are, you know, in that category of – from – from them”]; see also Attachment F [Stricchiola
Report] at ¶ 21 [“[W]ithout access to the PRNewswire and Businesswire accounts responsible for
26 sending these press releases to view their analytics data, only rough estimates regarding their
respective release performance is possible”]; ¶ 16 [“[W]ithout access to the press release analytics
27 within the PRNewswire and BusinessWire accounts … one cannot determine the press releases’
precise distribution and performance metrics”] [emphases added].)
28 -10-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 Indeed, the personal-knowledge evidence from fact and expert witnesses such as

2 publication relations agent Sam Singer and public relations expert Joann Killeen will show that

3 Singer paid PR Newswire to send the Press Release one time to PR Newswire’s subscribers, and

4 PR Newswire sends press releases one time, much like an online newspaper sends one mass daily

5 email to its subscribers. What PR Newswire’s subscribers thereafter do with a press release is pure

6 speculation. Those knowledgeable witnesses will likewise testify that Business Wire operates in

7 the same fashion.

8 2. Plaintiff’s Belated Production of Stricchiola’s Documents Has
Prejudiced the Defendants
9

10 Finally, as discussed in Defendants’ first Supplement to their Motion in Limine No. 6,

11 Plaintiff should not be permitted to introduce the Meltwater Report or Trail Runner Report or X

12 posts—or any of Stricchiola’s other late-produced documents—because Defendants did not have

13 their statutorily-required time to analyze, examine, and question the purported expert about the

14 documents. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.415.) Providing for additional in-trial deposition time is

15 not the proper remedy. The only fair and appropriate remedy is exclusion—of the late-produced

16 documents or of the putative expert witness.

17 More fundamentally, permitting egregious discovery conduct by the Plaintiff—especially

18 in a case where the Court has already issued two orders to compel against Plaintiff—would nullify

19 the purpose and meaning of the discovery rules and set a new low-bar precedent that discovery

20 violations (especially as to experts) lack any consequences. Where, as here, the violating party is

21 the one who also carries the burden of proof, her failure to properly disclose evidence that would

22 then later be used as a sword against Defendants at trial is materially unfair and poses significant

23 post-trial concerns if the Court ultimately admits such evidence (oral testimony or documents).

24 III. CONCLUSION

25 For the reasons explained above, and in Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6, Supplement

26 to Motion in Limine No. 6, and Reply in support of Motion in Limine No. 6 and Supplement, the

27 evidence filed in support thereof, and oral argument by the parties during the Court’s trial

28 -11-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 management conference, Defendants respectfully request that the Court exclude the hearsay and

2 late-produced evidence and related testimony from Plaintiff’s purported expert witness Jessie

3 Stricchiola—specifically, Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits Nos. 41, 42, 43, and 47, and testimony based

4 thereon.

6 Dated: March 31, 2024 DLA PIPER LLP (US)

7
By:
8
JEFFREY E. TSAI
9 KATHLEEN S. KIZER
EMILY ROSE MARGOLIS
10 Attorneys for Defendants
11

28 -12-
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

3 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18

4 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: DLA Piper LLP (US), 555 Mission

5 Street, Suite 2400, San Francisco, CA 94105.

6 On March 31, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:

7 DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6

8
on the following:
9
John S. Rueppel
10 Angie Lam
JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP
11 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, California 94104
12
T: 415.693.0550
13 F: 415.693.0500
E: john@jkzllp.com
14 E: angie.lam@jkzllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa Keith
15

16
I transmitted copies of the document(s) described above via e-mail to the persons at the
17
email addresses set forth above pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement on or about March 31,
18
2023, to provide service by e-mail.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
20
true and correct.
21
Executed on March 31, 2024, at San Francisco, California.
22

23
Travis Jensen
24

28
PROOF OF SERVICE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
ACTIVE\1608458968.1
Attachment A
Meltwater Impact https://impact.meltwater.com/reports/fRBgXTodRnJx

Meltwater IMPACT

Celeste K. White
Prevails in Estate Case
Celeste K White Prevails In Estate Case of Late
of Late Father Father Prominent Napa Valley Businessman Ed
Keith
lcodll"dCclo, .. Wh, .. ~,.,"'""t;,,,J Oh«od, ol Ed ~•It!«"''"'" VI'~/· •nUr.ly
,,.op,,1· ~""! o,Qe• ;,,.,ro ,nfo,l,<1• ~ NM~

Prominent Napa Valley """''~,,_,.,,.,,.,
""'""""''"""'
""''~"'"""""
Businessman Ed Keith '"°""
•<11''1. c,o,F ... "h IS >Oll.'PO,,..,,,,.,.., • ""'" l h>< '"'""'"' t,~"a"'lfU-.oDt~o,>,,«,oho,,,,Oe >I

13 of 13 3/14/24, 8:06 PM
STRICCHIOLA.000376
Meltwater Impact https://impact.meltwater.corn/reports/VvdtOMKZDtQc/hits

f- Report

NEWS

123 articles ::-

The Daily Times Leader - FlnancialContent
§ us I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 3.6k

• The Post and Mail - FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ - A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 532

Sweetwater Reporter - FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 229k

■ Big Spring Herald - FinancialContent

I of 13 3/14/24, 8:06 PM
STRICCHIOLA.000377
Meltwater Impact https://impact.meltwater.com/reports/VvdtOMKZDtQc/hits

§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 986

The Inyo Register - FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 508

■
Daily Penny Alerts - FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 229k

Mammoth Times - FinancialContent
MT
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 731

KUTV - Financialcontent.com
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

2 of 13 3/14/24, 8:06 PM
STRICCHIOLA,000378
Meltwater Impact https://impact.meltwater.com/reports/VvdtOMKZDtQc/hits

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 229k

Daily Herald - FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 15.4k

■
Tamar Securities - FlnancialContent
§ US I Mar 15. 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 229k

The Wapakoneta Daily News - FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 781

The Pilot News - FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

3 of 13 3/14/24, 8:06 PM
STRICCHIOLA.000379
Meltwater Impact https://impact.meltwater.com/repmts/VvdtOMKZDtQc/hits

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 229k

Minyanville • FinancialContent
MV § US I Mar 15, 2021 , 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 4.7k

The Statesman Examiner· FinancialContent
...
SE § US I Mar 15, 2027 • 00:00

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 557

International Business Times - FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15. 2021 • 00:00

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 229k

Azcentral.com • FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

4 of 13 3/14/24, 8:06 PM
STRICCHIOLA.000380
Meltwater Impact https://impact.meltwater.com/reports/VvdtOMKZDtQc/hits

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 5.4k

■
Pawtucket Times - Financial Content
§ US I Mar 15. 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 229k

■
The Kane Republican- Financial Content
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA, Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate ...

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 229k

mlilll!!I The Kane Republican - FinancialContent
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 897

SM Daily Press - Financial Content
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

5 of 13 3/14/24, 8:06 PM
STRICCHIOLA.000381
Meltwater Impact https://impact.meltwater.corn/repmts/VvdtOMKZDtQc/hits

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
NAPA. Calif., March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ - A Napa County judge has ruled that Celeste K. White
acted entirely properly handling the estate.,.

Similarity 94% Potential Reach 229k

JOT I UP
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
Celeste Keith White had been named co-trustee of the estate of her late father, Ed Keith, after his
death in 2006.

Similarity 92% Potential Reach 1k

El Popular News
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
Judge declares White's accounting and investments of the proceeds of Ed Keith's estate were
entirely proper; final order issued in case in f ...

Similarity 91% Potential Reach 1.5k

Just Wine - PRnewswire
§ CA I Mar 15, 2027 • 00:00

Similarity 91 % Potential Reach 139

PR Newswire - Creative Culinary
§ US I Mar 15, 2021 • 00:00

6 of 13 3/14/24, 8:06 PM
STRICCHIOLA.000382
Meltwater Impact https://impact.meltwater.corn/rep01ts/VvdtOMKZDtQc/hits

Similarity 91 % Potential Reach 74.3k

PR Newswire - Brew and Booze
CISION
§ BR I Mar 15. 2021 • 00:00

Celeste K. White Prevails in Estate Case of Late Father Prominent Napa
Valley Businessman Ed Keith
J.u

Case Info

Judge

Cynthia Pillsbury Smith Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 01, 2024

Case Filing Date

October 25, 2022

County

Parties

DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE Defendant
Keith, Lisa Plaintiff
Rueppel, John S Attorney for the Plaintiff
The Valley Rock Foundation Defendant
Tsai, Jeffrey Eewu Attorney for the Defendant
Valley Rock Foundation Defendant
White, Celeste Defendant
White, Robert Defendant
Kathleen Kizer Attorneys for Defendants
Emily Margolis Attorneys for Defendants
Angie Lam Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ann Kavanagh Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Stein Attorneys for Defendants
Roey Rahmil Attorneys for Defendants
Dominic Campisi Attorney
Nancy Levin Attorney
Charles Sundholm Attorney
Philip Wang Attorneys for Plaintiffs
George Chikovani Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Charles Fanning Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Evan Winet Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: Lisa Keith vs Celeste White et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties