Motion,Ex Parte: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                GILBERT L. PURCELL, ESQ., S.B. #113603
JAMES P. NEVIN, ESQ.., S.B. #220816

2) jnevin@braytonlaw.com
BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP ELECTRONICALLY
3) Attorneys at Law FILED
a] bo Boroieo ee Sugar Cour of Caton
_|| Novato, California 94948 10/01/2018
5]f (415) 898-1555 Lo; of 42 Court
BY: VANESSA WU
6 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs Deputy Clerk
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11]| ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ) ASBESTOS
) No. CGC-10-275731
12 Plaintiffs, )
) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE
2 13 }] vs. ) | REGARDING IMPROPER
aS ) QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE
ge 14]| C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; ) | JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE
ae Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit | )
$2 15 ]| attached to the Summary Complaint )
5 herein; and DOES 1-8500. ) Trial Date: October 1, 2018
5 E 16 Dept.: 613, Hon. Angela Bradstreet
BR
18 Defendants should not be allowed to pose any improper questions to prospective jurors

19]| during voir dire examination. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 222.5 (West
20 |] 2012), the Court should not permit counsel to engage in “improper questioning.” Questions not
21 || relevant to the purposes of voir dire are improper when the questions are “not likely to provide
22 || information useful in exercising a peremptory challenge or establishing a challenge for cause.”
23 || (See, People v. Williams (1981) 29 Cal.3d 392, 407.)

24 This Court should not permit any of the following types of improper questions for the
25 || purposes of voir dire and should instruct defense counsel to refrain from asking such questions.
26 || Improper and inappropriate questions include, but are not limited to: (1) interjecting the defense
27 || counsel’s opinions; (2) summarizing the evidence or stating facts which will be introduced into
28 || evidence; (3) instructing potential jurors on how to view or weigh the evidence; (4) questions

K.Minjured.19349 uriatunil prect improper voir diel wpa 1 JPN
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIREnot relevant to the prospective juror’s ability to be fair or impartial in the case; (5) injecting the
defense’s arguments; (6) asking argumentative or leading questions; (7) asking general
questions on the law; (8) misrepresenting the applicable standards, law, and facts; and (9) any
other improper questions whose purpose is other than to ascertain bias from the prospective
jurors for use in a peremptory or cause challenge and are not structured in such a way as to
ascertain that knowledge. Though the trial court has wide discretion in permitting counsel’s
questions during voir dire, this Court may not permit questions that do not inure to the selection
of a fair and impartial jury. (Cal. Rules of Court, Standards of Judicial Administration, standard
3; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1540(c)); see, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 222.5; see also, Williams, 29
Cal.3d at 407.)

Neither is it a function of the examination of prospective jurors to (1) educate the jury
panel to the particular facts of the case, (2) to compel the jurors to commit themselves to vote a
particular way, (3) to prejudice the jury for or against a particular party, (4) to argue the case,

(5) to indoctrinate the jury, or [6] to instruct the jury into matters of law. (Rousseau v. West
Coast House Movers (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 878, 882.) In addition, Standard 3.25 of the
Standards of Judicial Administration regarding the examination of prospective jurors in civil
cases states that, “the trial judge [should not] allow counsel to question the jurors concerning . .
. the meaning of particular words or phrases, or the comfort of the jurors, except in unusual
circumstances, where, in the trial judge’s sound discretion, such questions become necessary to
insure the selection of a fair and impartial jury.

Under the first prong of Rousseau, whereby the jurors should not be educated as to
particular facts of the case, “[v]oir dire of the jury is not the time for premature presentation of
evidence, nor for the even more frequent attempts at preinstruction. Neither instruction nor the
giving of evidence is the function of counsel.” (See, Rousseau, 256 Cal.App.2d at 885; see
also, Sweet v. Stutch (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 891, 894.) Moreover, “it is misconduct on the part
of counsel . . . so to frame his question so that it goes beyond what is reasonably necessary to
serve the legitimate purpose of eliciting the facts he is entitled to adduce in order to secure a
jury free from bias or prejudice, if it is also apparent that the question may fairly be said to have

KC Anjued19349.aTui preot improper voit die wpa 2 IPN
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIREthe effect of serving the illegitimate purpose of prejudicing the jury by fixing in their minds [an]

idea.” (See, Arnold y. California Portland Cement Co. (1919) 41 Cal.App.420 [while holding

that it was misconduct on the part of plaintiff's counsel to frame his question in a manner which
suggested that defendant was protected by insurance against liability for negligence, the
proposition is still pertinent to this case, as the overall purpose of voir dire is to ensure a jury
free from bias and prejudice].)

Plaintiffs anticipate that questions and/or statements seeking to educate the jury as to
particular facts, to present evidence, or to inject opinion will be presented by defense counsel
during voir dire and, therefore, seeks to preclude them.

Such questions and/or statements might include, but are not necessarily limited to:

° Has anybody had experience with a small business?
(This is an attempt to suggest or otherwise infer that a defendant is a small business).

° The material at issue is this case is , which is

That’s the product that’s in issue.
(This is an attempt to summarize facts or insert evidence. Therefore, any
statement like this should be precluded, especially one which misstates or
mischaracterizes the facts of this case, such as when there are
several products at issue).

. There is going to be “sketchy” information presented about my client.
(Any statement similar to this posed by defense counsel equates to
insertion of fact and opinion, as well as a mischaracterization of the

evidence).

. There will be evidence about the knowledge of the Navy and what the Navy
knew. The defendant did not know about the dangers of asbestos.

7 Has anybody ever received a bill that was not theirs?

. Do any of the jurors believe, as Ido, that ?

All such questions and/or assertions are purposefully crafted and wordsmithed attempts to
precondition and indoctrinate the prospective jurors. They should not be permitted.

Defense counsel should also not seek to prejudice the jury for or against another party,
as this would be improper under the third prong of Rousseau. 256 Cal.App.2d at 882. Plaintiffs
anticipate that questions and/or statements of this type will be presented by defense counsel
during voir dire and, therefore, seeks to preclude them. Such questions and/or statements might
include, but are not necessarily limited to:

KC Anjued19349.aTui preot improper voit die wpa 3 IPN
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE. Just because we used asbestos in our product, does that mean we are or were

wrong?
. Just because we have been sued, does that mean we are wrong?
. Does anyone believe where there is smoke, there is fire?
. Just because we are here defending this case, does that mean we are
wrong?
. Just because this case has made it this far, does that mean the case must have

some merit?

All questions and/or statements of this type seek to suggest that the defendant is not wrong and,
thereby, might prejudice the prospective jurors against the plaintiffs, which is highly
inappropriate during voir dire.
Other improper questions that indoctrinate and precondition the jury include, but are not
limited to:
7 Can you go back in time to the past to judge the standards as they were then?
Do you expect that the defendants have to disprove the case?
(The foregoing two questions presume the jurors will be adequately
informed on the applicable law).
. It is not your job to “fill in the blanks...” can you stop yourself from filling in
the blanks?
(This statement implies that the jury should not draw inferences from circumstantial
evidence, which is permissible, and the statement presupposes a case presents blanks).
. “Tt is not about connecting two things; it is actually adding information.” Can
you do that?
(This inappropriately endeavors to guide the jury on the law of how to
evaluate the evidence).
. Sympathy, and empathy, has “absolutely no place in this courtroom;” can you
set yours aside?
(Sympathy and Empathy may be an appropriate metric in assessing damages. The
foregoing truncated statement does not comprehensively state the law accurately).
Moreover, this Court should not permit defense counsel to pose irrelevant, purposeless
questions which indoctrinate and ingratiate the venire, such as:

. “Do you believe, as Ido.
(inappropriately interjecting d efense el own opinion)

7 “Have you paid an attorney on a contingency fee basis, and do you think the
amount your attorney took was fair?”

KC Anjued19349.aTui preot improper voit die wpa 4 IPN
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE(irrelevant to both peremptory and cause challenges, and preconditioning the jury)

. If you were in my shoes, would you want you as a juror?
. Should I be worried about you?
7 Does anyone think it is wrong for a defendant to choose to go to trial

instead of settling the case?
. Should you, Mr./Ms. , be a juror in this case?

(The foregoing four questions are irrelevant to both peremptory and cause challenges,
because they are not aimed at uncovering bias or prejudice).

Such impermissible questions do not serve a valid purpose under the policy of voir dire as
articulated by the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court; they only
serve to precondition the potential jurors, waste the court’s time, and subvert the conservation
policy set forth by the California courts.

Dated: October 1, 2018 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP

By: _/s/ James P. Nevin

James P. Nevin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

KC Anjued19349.aTui preot improper voit die wpa 5

JPN

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIREEXHIBIT AOB AO OG bh wo N

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ERNEST H. GOLDSMITH, JUDGE
DEPARTMENT NO. 613
SEEOOO TS
JOUN AND SANDRA LEONARD
Plaintiffs,
vs. Case No. CGC-10-275715

CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, et al.;

Defendants.

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIC CENTER
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012

Taken Before RHONDA R. HARRIS,

RPR, CSR No. 7414oOo oa N a Ww no =

my N N WN Nm nN ee = oe 222 Sea aaa aa ee
on b Ww nN = Qo oO Co MN HD on bh QW nN = Oo

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
BRAYTON * PURCELL LLP
222 Rush Landing Road
Novate, California 94948
BY: GILBERT L. PURCELL, ESQ.

ANNE T. ACUNA, ESQ.

FOR DEFENDANT, METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION:
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIGE
101 California Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 267-4175
BY: LISA L. OBERG, ESQ.

SHEILA O'GARA, ESQ.

FOR DEFENDANTS, KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY and HANSON
PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC. :
DeHAY ELLISON LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1950
Oakland, California 94607
(510) 285-0750
BY: JULIE A. TORRES ESQ.

ANNIE C. WU, ESO.APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (Continued):

FOR DEFENDANT, CRANE CO.:

K&L GATES

Four Embarcadero Center, Su

San Francisco,

(415) 249-1077

BY: MICHELE C.
BRENDAN J.

CLIFTON T.

California

BARNES ESQ.

TUOHY, ESQ.

HUTCHINSON,

= Q0O-

ite 1200

94111

ESQ.N N nN N nN nN = =~ = ae = = — ook: = a
on w nN — oO o ao NM oOo ao be ow nN =~ Oo 2 oo sl a oO +

POR OQ: CoB Bo Dod Nog Ss
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012 - 9:53 A.M.
=--900---

THE COURT: I'm going to thank and excuse
Ms. Long. Thank you very much. Appreciate your being
here.

THE CLERK: Ms. Long, do you need a slip for
your employer or not?

MS. LONG: Yes.

THE CLERK: I have one for you thank you.

THE COURT: Could you call the next -

THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.

Next on the random list, Counsel, at line 28,

the next name for seat No. 15 is it line 28, Yelena

Sheynkman, S-h-e-y-n-k-m-a-n,

Please come forward and take seat No. 15 in
the front row.

{Discussion off the record.)

THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. Sheynkman.

MS. SHEYNKMAN: Good morning.

THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to give us
the personal information that is asked for on that sheet
and also to tell us if you would have answers or
responses to the questions you've heard yesterday, like

questions that I have asked or the attorneys have asked.IQ EES INSEE INSEE SEEING SES SS Sg ggg
a F&F Ww NY = 909 08 @ nN DOD HO FF Ww NY =

Oo Oo OB NO TO RF wD RN

35

cement plant and concrete plants when there was
inventories, or there was inventories for payroll, I
would have to go to these plants and do my duties of
counting cement stones, rocks and stuff like that.

MS. TORRES: That sounds like fun;

MR. BOE: Exciting.

MS. TORRES: Let me ask you this. Are you
familiar with what is -- what Portland Cement, what's
contained in that material?

MR. BOE: Vaguely. It has been 25 years since
I have been in the material business. I do not believe
there is asbestos in cement that is used for concrete at
that point.

MS. TORRES: You are correct. Portland Cement
4s a simple, basic concrete. No asbestos in it
whatever.

MR. BOE: Right. Cement is the ingredient in
concrete.

MS. TORRES: You were also asked if you had
any familiarity with any Hanson Permanente materials.
The material at issue in this case is stucco material,
which is that plaster material that goes on the outside
of buildings, usually residential, I mean, other
buildings as well; but very common in residential; and

you'll see a lot of houses that were built, gosh, in theboom in California where they went up all over the state

of California, and you'll see mostly stucco on the
outside, and that's -- ‘that's the product that's in
issue

MR. PURCELL: Objection, Your Honor. That

mischaracterizes. There are several products at issue.

Plastic gun cement and hand cement. It is not stucco.

THE COURT: Well, you want to refine this? ‘

MS. TORRES: Well, it is stucco. We just
might have an disagreement on that.

THE COURT: It is some coating material on the
outside of a house. How is that?

MR. PURCELL: It is not called stucco.

THE COURT: Well, I guess we'll hear more
about that later.

MR. PURCELL: And then there are other
products at issue with the other defendants as well, not
just Ms. Torres as to just Kaiser Cement.

THE COURT: She's just talking about Kaiser?

MS. TORRES: I'm just talking about

Kaiser Permanente.

Is anybody familiar with materials that I'm
referring to as stucco, my client refers to as stucco?
They go outside, application on houses.

Does anybody have familiarity with it? QuiteoO oOo ON ODO oOo FF WO DY =

N MR NM NY MB YB =| we we Be Be aa ai kc
ao ££ WwW NY = O09 oO DO NI DB HO BR WwW DY =

43

procedures. You will hear all of that. And you'll hear
the evidence. You'll hear information about how it's
impacting him personally and also how it's impacted his

family. It is going to engender quite a bit of

sympathy, and that's why we have been talking about
sympathy here.

Sympathy is one of those things -~ empathy -~
that makes us human. It's a very common, wonderful
things to have. We all -- it separates us from the rest
of the animal kingdom, really; but it has absolutely no |
place in this courtroom. It has no place in a lawsuit.

And it would be extremely unfair and prejudicial to any

of the defendants sitting here. The sympathy was one of
the things that we used to be -- we were judged by.

‘THE COURT: Well Ms. Torres, I did read
the -- I did read the instruction that relates to that,
and obviously I'd expect people that are on the jury to
follow my instruction. So I think that appropriately
the issue is that they can follow my instruction.

MS. TORRES: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. So, perhaps, that would be |
what you might want to ask.

MS. TORRES: Well, I. just want -- one other
thing, if I might, just to clarify why I want to talk

about this. |=

2 © © SN MP oH RR wD

Mw NM NM NM HY HY BSB B@ Bw Bo 2a 2 wo aw au a
a f& O NHN |= 39D 06O8 B&B I DBD HD FF W DY =

49
that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt;

but in civil trifles, such as this -~ this one, the
party who is required to prove something neéd prove only
that it is more likely to be true than not true."

Does that clarify it for you?

MR. BULA: Yeah, it does.

So I would say that in this trial that I would
be able to uphold that standard and be able to:
distinguish And I did hear the term yesterday "more
likely than not," and that I think I can distinguish
what that means in trial and evaluate the evidence as to
how it facilitates that measurement.

MS. TORRES: Thank you.

MR. BULA: Sure.

MS; TORRES: Mr. Disney, what do you think
about that standard?

MR. DISNEY: Makes sense.

MS. TORRES: You think you can evaluate the,
information based on that standard and apply it?

MR, DISNEY: That's the way I typically
evaluate.

MS. TORRES: Let me ask you this. You talked
about -- back in time, one of the things that will
become clear, having 50-some-odd years gone by, is that

memories fade; and the plaintiff's memory will not have=

CO ESR ESO Gay san, JBN

50

perfect recall necessarily 52 years ago, and they'll be
likely to be some blanks in the information,

It is not your job to £i11 in those blanks,
and that's when we're talking proof and burden. It is
not your job to fill in those blanks. Hard to resist
often. We do it in your everyday life, we fill in
blanks for people that are talking or when somebody is
stuttering, or that kind of thing. It is not your job
to fill it in in this case.

Is anyone going to have a problem with that,
sitting in the panel here, wnderstanding that you don't
feel in the blanks? There is also going to be
sketchy -- fairly sketchy information about --
information about my two clients...

MR. PURCELL: Objection, Your Honor. This is
all improper and incorrect.

THE COURT: Well, do you have an objection?

MR. PURCELL: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Let me -- let me see if I
can clarify this -- clarify this by saying, What
controls is the evidence that you actually hear and see
in court, not what might have been, or what you suppose
something to be or have been; but what is produced as
evidence through the witnesses and the visual or other

evidence that you're handed.51

So I think that would do it.

MS. TORRES: Okay. JI just have one question
on that, that I think is okay, Your Honor; and that is
Kaiser Gypsum and Hanson Permanente and the other
defendants don't have the responsibility for filling in
those blanks either. It's plaintiffs' burden; as I've
said.

Dr. Day, if there is -- if there are no
answers to certain of these things and Kaiser Gypsum or
Hanson Permanente or another of the defendants doesn't
fill in the blanks, can you resist putting in your own
bias or information that you might bring to the table
and putting that information in for them?

DR. DAY: I don't understand your question.

MS. TORRES: What I'm asking is if
Kaiser Gypsum or Kaiser Cement or another defendant
doesn't fill in some blanks that are in the facts of the
case?

Are you =- can you resist making assumptions
about those missing facts and putting them in based on
information that you might understand?

DR. DAY: I will do my best to be a fair and
impartial evaluator of the facts that are presented.

MS. TORRES: Thank you.

How about you, Mr. Disney?oO Oo oe NN Oo OH RR WwW

—

52
MR. DISNEY: I mean, it is difficult not to

try to fill in the blanks. Looking at an incomplete
puzzle doésn't really tell you what's going on with it.
So, I mean, to ask someone to try and not make logical
connections between two points is telling them
essentially not to think. It would be difficult not to
try and connect two things, but I could try my best not
to.

MS. TORRES: It is not about connecting two
things; it is about actually adding information,

MR. PURCELL: Objection, Your Honor. This is
mischaracterization of the evidence is objectionable.

THE COURT: Well, objection. Let's get back
to what I just said a moment ago, and leave it there;
that is, you're presented with certain evidence, and
that's what you must live with as a juror, and you
cannot suppose something further, and that's what your
instructions basically say, is that you are limited to
what's presented to you even if you would like to have
something else. You decide based on what the
evidence -- what evidence is presented.

Does that -- I think that tells the story, and
the question gets back to following the Court's
instruction in that regard.

MS. TORRES: Voir dire and the trial proceeds104

familiar with asbestos and its dangers, I asked them
whether anyone had ever obtained any knowledge on what
sellers of asbestos products were telling the Navy
regarding the dangers of asbestos historically. This is
also something that I was asked to move on and not
further inquire about. That not withstanding, and as if.
that didn't occur and Your Honor's guidance completely
ignored, we saw multiple instances of inappropriate voir
dire by the defendants.

Let's start with Crane Co. They were allowed
to make statements to this jury about there will be
evidence about the Navy knowledge, what the Navy knew.
They were, likewise, according to them, not be evidence
about what Crane Co. knew. Crane Co. didn't know about
dangers of asbestos.

And the resounding question that followed
after those pronouncements and affirmative statements
were made was can you listen to that testimony. I think
we all know that's French for. There is no question.
There is no question. They are doing it for the effect
and to, indeed, indoctrinate and to signpost what they
believe the evidence is going to be.

They were questions posed about any experience
in negotiating contractors with the Navy, which I think

is an area of inquiry that would be similar to the areasee a
oO ON DR oO fF WO NY =|

20
21
22
23
24
25

olOo OUlmMmrlUN UCU CU UG

105

of inquiry I was urged not to further pursue or go into
on my voir dire.

On a separate note, there was en alarmingly
irrelevant inquiry with one of the jurors who had a
previous lawsuit about whether or not she paid her
attorney on a contingency basis and did she believe the
amount your attorney took was fair. Again, an
inappropriate line of inquiry to a specific juror.

There also was an urging by me, towards the
end of my voir dire, that I move it along. And I'm not
saying I felt rushed, but you were very cognizable of
the time the plaintiffs took. The defendants have.
eclipsed my time by a lot without any suggestion from
Your Honor that they were doing too much in their
inquiry of the jurors.

My biggest concern is the questioning by
Ms. Torres, which I think was the most egregious that
we've seen. Statements about her case has
righteousness; that the evidence regarding Kaiser Cement
is quote, sketchy, close quote; that if you believe
quote, ar I do, close quote, X, Y and Z, injecting her
own opinions and anointment of the evidence into a
question. Entirely inappropriate.

The phase, quote, fill in the blanks, close

quote, there is not going to be any need for this jury115
THE COURT: Counsel will refrain from

attempting to precondition the jury. Okay

MS.. BARNES: And I would just like to note,
for the record, that there were no objections made at
the time of this line of questioning. This only coming
up after the fact.

MR. PURCELL: That's correct, because there is
no remedy.

MS. TORRES: You know, Your Honor, just for
the record, I have need to say that, absolutely there
was no intention on my part. I. was --

THE COURT: You pushed the envelope a little.
Okay

MS. TORRES: Your Honor, I have been asking
those same questions for years.

THE COURT: And I did interject a number of
times. So..

MS. TORRES: You did.

THE COURT: So I think we're -- the episode is
closed.

MR. PURCELL: Any question that says, do any
of the jurors believe, as I do, blah, blah blah, is an
improper, on-its-face question. It should not be asked,
and Ms. Torres asked it. Describing the evidence

regarding Kaiser Cement as sketchy, how about defending=~

Oo © On DO OT fF WO DN

116

that statement. How is that not preconditioning?

Am I supposed to stand up and say, Ladies and
Gentlemen, we have got the strongest case I've ever
tried against Kaiser Cement? It is not sketchy at all.
It is compelling. Should I have said that?

THE COURT: Well, this will all unfold in in
the trial. Okay

‘MR. PURCELL: It sure will, but I'm asking
that that kind of nonsense stop. She cannot defend a
comment on the evidence that the evidence is, quote,
sketchy against Kaiser Cement, close quote. That's just
misconduct.

THE COURT: There won't be any opinions of
counsel, and the jury will be so admonished.

MS. BARNES: What time are we returning?

THE COURT: 1:30.

(Whereupon, the proceedings adjourned at 12:43

Pem.)

~==900-——N @ ow & ON =

N N NY NN NY NY = = SB SB Sse 2B Sse se Se
a fF WO NHN = COC HGH BN DW OD FF Ww MY +-§ OD HY @w

117

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ©
y ss.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA )

1, RHONDA R. HARRIS, Shorthand Reporter -

State of California, do hereby certify:

That said proceeding was taken before me at said
time and place, and was taken down in shorthand by me, a
Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and
that the foregoing transcript constitutes a full, true,
and correct report of said proceeding that tock place.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunder subscribed my

hand this 5th day of June 2012.

ee

@ RHO R. HARRIS, CSR No. 7414
State of CaliforniaCm IY AH BR wWN

BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD
PO BOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169
(ALS) 898-1555

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FILE & SERVEXPRESS

lam employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of 18
ears and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 222 Rush Landing Road,
.O. Box 6169, Novato, California, 94948-6169.

On October 1, 2018, I electronically served (E-Service) the following documents:

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE REGARDING IMPROPER QUESTIONING OF
PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE

on the interested parties in this action by causing File & ServeXpress E-service program to
transmit a true copy thereof to the following party(ies):

ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA

Selman Breitman, LLP - San Francisco Office

33 New Montgomery, 6" Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105 \

The above document was transmitted by File & ServeXpress E-Service and the
transmission was reported as complete and without error.

Executed on October 1, 2018, at Novato, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

oct

Angela(Rorterfie!

Robert Ross and Jean Ross v. C.C. Moore & Co. paeinees. etal.
an Francisco County Superior Court Case No. -10-275731

PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-SERVICE