Preview
TED DANIEL WOOD, SBN 191768 El'pm'or 50"" of Cahmm'a
F F
LAW OFFICE 0F NANCY VITALE |
County 0i Butte
|
11290 Pyrites Way Suite 210
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 lb:
9/26/2018 L
Telephone: 916-851-3750 E
Facsimile: 916-851-3770 D D
E-Mail: ted.wood@zurichna.com Ely
“ME? 5%‘? my“ DHPUIY
HI H}
!—.'r.~r.rl'n."r:.1|'.'1-'
(DWNCDU'IAOON-A
Counsel for Battery Systems, lnc., Doe 2
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
HARI KRISHNA, Case No. 165145
Plaintiff, BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.’S, REPLY TO
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY
vs. OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF
TED DANIEL WOOD
RANDALL SMITH; ON MARK MARINE;
MORNINGSTAR CORPORATION; and DATE: September 28, 2019
DOES 1 TO 20 ' (Per OST Granted 9/19-18)
TIME: 9:00 AM
DEPT‘ 1
Defendants.
ACTION FILED: OCTOBER 14, 2015
TRIAL DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2018
mNOUW-wAOQOOONCDm-bUJNAO
NNNNNNNNN-AAAAAAAAAA
Plaintiff HARI KRISHNA ("Plaintiff") has objected to two paragraphs in and two
exhibits to the Declaration of Ted Daniel Wood in support of Battery Systems, lnc.’s Motion
tb Quash/Barrows Motion. As shown herein, Plaintiff's objections are inappropriate and
should be overruled.
Declaration Paragragh 6:
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the first six pages of
Defendant Randall Smith’s Response to Request for Production of
Documents, Set One (“Smith's Discovery Responses") served on Plaintiff on
March 30, 2016. Exhibit B includes documents produced by Smith.
BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.’S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE -1-
THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD
_-\
Plaintiffs Obiection:
Paragraph 6 of the declaration is objected to as being hearsay beyond the
personal knowledge of the declarant.
Resgonse to Obiection:
Counsel for Battery Systems obtained from counsel for Trojan, copies of the
discovery
OQOONOUUILOON
and pleadings he obtained from the parties to this litigation, including discovery
sewed between Randall Smith and Plaintiff. The discovery documents exchanged in the
litigation are authenticated by the signature of the party making the responses to the
Verification attached to the Responses. The Responses are signed by counsel for Smith,
which signature is a verification under CCP section 128.7 that the responses and
documents attached thereto are not presented for an improper purpose. The proof of
service includes a statement, under oath, that they were delivered to the party identified in
the proof of service, to wit, Plaintiff's counse|’s office. The responses, with the three layers
of statements/verifications made under oath by three separate persons (Smith, counsel,
and'counsel’s staff) along with the fact the responses were obtained by a party to this case
are sufficient grounds to give the declarant a basis (making him competent) to state that the
attached responses were “served on Plaintiff on March 30, 2016” and that they include
“documents produced by Smith.”
Plaintiff’s Obiection to Exhibit B:
Exhibit B to the declaration is objected to as being hearsay and not properly
authenticated by a competent witness.
Response to Obiection to Exhibit B:
As stated above, the responses, with the three layers of statements/verifications
made under oath by three separate persons (Smith, counsel, and counsel’s staff) along
with the fact thé responses were obtained by a party to this case are sufficient grounds to
giVe the declarant a basis (making him competent) to state that the attached responses
were “served on Plaintiffon March 30, 2016” and that they include “documents produced by
Smith." For the same reasons, the verified discovery responses, signed by counsel and
BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.'S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE _2_
THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD
sewed under penalty of perjury are not hearsay.
Further, as lnterrogatory and Request for Admissions responses are admissible
under CACI 209 and 210, verified responses to Request for Production should be similarly
admissible.
Finally, the discovery responses are admissible as business records. The
OQOmNCDU'l-bLONA
Responses to Request for Production attached as Exhibit B to the moving papers are a (1)
writing made in the regular course of the responding pafly’s counsel's business (responding
to discovery is part of an attorney’s business in litigation); (2) the verification of the
responding party and the verification on the proof of service show that the responses and
A the documents provided were made at or near the time recorded, March 30, 2016; (3) the
A
—\
responding party, Randall Smith, states, under oath, that he is aware of the document and
AN its contents; and (4) verified discovery responses with a proof of service in litigation are the
00
_\
type of record that indicates the document’s trustworthiness. (California Evidence Code
Ak section 1271.)
U1
_\
Under any of the three foregoing reasons, the Randall Smith discovery responses
O)
.4.
attached as Exhibit B to the moving papers are not hearsay and are fully admissible by this
\l
._\
Court to demonstrate that as of March 30, 2016, Plaintiff knew Battery Systems was in the
_\
stream of commerce of the sale of the eight batteries that were the subject of the injuries he
(0/08
.._\
alleged were the result of a defective product in his Complaint, filed in 2015.
NO Declaration Paragragh 7:
N —\
Smith produced a copy of an invoice from Battery Systems dated May 3,
NN 2012, (the “Battery Systems Invoice") at page 6 of Smith‘s Discovery
N CD Responses.
N -l> Plaintiff's Obiection to Paraqraph 7:
[\J U'l Paragraph 7 of the declaration is objected to as being hearsay beyond the
|\J 0') personal kriowledge of the declaration.
\l
[\J Resgonse to Obiection:
|\J (D Counsel for Battery Systems obtained from counsel for Trojan, copies of the
BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.’S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE -3-
THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD
discovery and pleadings he obtained from the parties to this litigation, including discovery
served between Randall Smith and Plaintiff. Smith's verified response to Request No. 4
states that at page six is the “Battery Systems invoice for the replacement batteries.” The
discovery documents exchanged in the litigation are authenticated by the signature of the
party making the responses to the Verification attached to the Responses. The Responses
cooofloum-bmma
are signed by counsel for Smith, which signature is a verification under CCP section 128.7
that the responses 'and documents attached thereto are not presented for an improper
purpose. The proof of service includes a statement, under oath, that they were delivered to
the party identified in the proof of service, to wit, Plaintiffs counse|’s office. The responses,
with the three layers of statements/verifications made under oath by three separate persons
(Smith, counsel, and counsel’s staff) along with the fact the responses were obtained by a
party to this case are sufficient grounds to give the declarant a basis (making him
competent) to state that the attached responses were “served on Plaintiff on March 30,
2016” and that they include “documents produced by Smith."
Further, as lnterrogatory and Request for Admissions responses are admissible under
CACI 209 and 210, verified responses to Request for Production should be similarly
admissible.
Finally, the discovery responses are admissible as business records. The
Responses
NMNNNNNNN-AAAAA-LAAAA
to Request for Production attached as Exhibit B to the moving papers are a (1)
GDNOCD-bQJNAOCOCDNCDm-POONAO
writing made in the regular course of the responding party’s counsel's business (responding
to discovery is pan of an attorney’s business in litigation); (2) the verification of the
responding party and the verification on the proof of service show that the responses and
the documents provided were made at or near the time recorded, March 30, 2016; (3) the
responding party, Randall Smith, states, under oath, that he is aware of the document and
its contents; and (4) verified discovery responses with a proof of service in litigation are the
type of record that indicates the document's trustworthiness. (California Evidence Code
section 1271.)
BATTERY SYSTEMS, |NC.'S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE -4-
THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD
Under any of the three foregoing reasons, the Randall Smith discovery responses
attached as Exhibit B to the moving papers are not hearsay and are fully admissible by this
Court to demonstrate that as of March 30, 2016, Plaintiff knew Battery Systems was in the
stream of commerce of the sale of the eight batteries that were the subject of the injuries he
alleged were the
(OGJNQCh-P-(JONA
result of a defective product in his Complaint, filed in 2015.
Plaintiff’s Obiection to Exhibit C:
Exhibit C to the declaration is objected to as being hearsay and not properly
authenticated by a competent witness.
Response to Obiection to Exhibit C:
Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Amendment to Insert True Name
of Fictitiously Named Defendant (CCP § 474), filed August 2, 2018. This is a pleading, and
as such, is so inherently reliable, it is entitled to judicial notice under California Evidence
Code section 452(d)(1). Further, the copy attached as Exhibit C is the copy served on
Battery Systems by Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot now question the authenticity or admissibility
of a pleading he caused to be served on Battery Systems.
DATED:
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
September 25,
mNODCD-bOONAOQOOONOUU'l-PUDNAO
2018
By:
g
LAW OFFICE
TED
OF NANCY VITALE
DANIEL WOOD
Counsel for
Battery
Defendant
Systems, Inc.
BATTERY SYSTEMS, mars, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE _5_
THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD
‘PROOF OF SERVICE
[C.C.P. §§ 1013a AND 2015.5]
CASE NAME: KRISHNA v. SMITH, ET AL.
COURT I NO: BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT#165145
l, the undersigned, declare as follows:
l am employed
OfiQCDNOUCfi-hOONA
in the County of Sacramento, State of California. l am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 11290 Pyrites Way, Suite 210,
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6338.
On this date I served the attached, BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.’S REPLY TO v
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL
WOOD
addressed as follows:
Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Def. Randall Smith
Louis G. Beary, Esq. Gavan R. Munter, Esq.
Scranton Law Firm Tiza Serrano Thompson & Assoc.
980 9th Street #2250
2450 Stanwel! Dr. ‘
Concord, CA 94520 Sacramento, CA 95814
925-602-2727 916-561-2780
Fax: 925-676-9999 v
Fax: 1855-886-5559
Counsel for Def. Morning Star Corp. Counsel for X-Def. Troian Battery
James r. Pagliero, Esq. Comgany, LLC
Pagliero & Assoc. Douglas M. Kilduff, Esq.
5701 Marconi Ave., Ste. A Ericksen Arbuthnot
Carmichael, CA 95608 100 Howe Ave., Ste. 110 South
916-481-7100
NNNNNNNNNAA-A-A-AA-A-AA-L
Sacramento, CA 95825
Fax: 916-481-7101 916-483-5181
FaX: 916-483-7558
Counsel for Def. Steve Ahnmark
dba Ahnmark Marine
(IJNCDUIbUJNAOLOOONOUUI-POJNA
Marisa G. Huber, Esq.
Gibson Robb & Lindh LLP
201 Mission street #2700
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-348-6000
Fax: 415-348-6001
X (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) By causing a true copy and/0r original thereof to be
personally delivered via the following overnight courier service: Federal Express. [CCP
section 1013]
BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.'S, REPLY TO PLAINT!FF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE _6_
THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD
_
listed
(BY FACSIMILE)
parties. Said
| caused
transmission was
a true facsimile
reported as
to
complete
be electronically
and
transmitted
without error. A copy
to the
of the
transmission report shall be kept within the e-fax database of this company. The original of
this document will be served on the Document Depository herein via U.S. Postal Service
pursuant to the above paragraph if called for pursuant to Pre-Trial Order or Civil Code.
I declare
(OCDNCDCDAQJNA
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct‘ Executed on SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, at Rancho Cordoya, California.
MA'RCI Sr. BAKER
WNQCH-POONAOCOOONCDUILOONAO
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC/S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE _7_
THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD
Preview
TED DANIEL WOOD, SBN 191768 El'pm'or 50"" of Cahmm'a F F LAW OFFICE 0F NANCY VITALE | County 0i Butte | 11290 Pyrites Way Suite 210 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 lb: 9/26/2018 L Telephone: 916-851-3750 E Facsimile: 916-851-3770 D D E-Mail: ted.wood@zurichna.com Ely “ME? 5%‘? my“ DHPUIY HI H} !—.'r.~r.rl'n."r:.1|'.'1-' (DWNCDU'IAOON-A Counsel for Battery Systems, lnc., Doe 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE HARI KRISHNA, Case No. 165145 Plaintiff, BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.’S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY vs. OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD RANDALL SMITH; ON MARK MARINE; MORNINGSTAR CORPORATION; and DATE: September 28, 2019 DOES 1 TO 20 ' (Per OST Granted 9/19-18) TIME: 9:00 AM DEPT‘ 1 Defendants. ACTION FILED: OCTOBER 14, 2015 TRIAL DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2018 mNOUW-wAOQOOONCDm-bUJNAO NNNNNNNNN-AAAAAAAAAA Plaintiff HARI KRISHNA ("Plaintiff") has objected to two paragraphs in and two exhibits to the Declaration of Ted Daniel Wood in support of Battery Systems, lnc.’s Motion tb Quash/Barrows Motion. As shown herein, Plaintiff's objections are inappropriate and should be overruled. Declaration Paragragh 6: Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the first six pages of Defendant Randall Smith’s Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“Smith's Discovery Responses") served on Plaintiff on March 30, 2016. Exhibit B includes documents produced by Smith. BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.’S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE -1- THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD _-\ Plaintiffs Obiection: Paragraph 6 of the declaration is objected to as being hearsay beyond the personal knowledge of the declarant. Resgonse to Obiection: Counsel for Battery Systems obtained from counsel for Trojan, copies of the discovery OQOONOUUILOON and pleadings he obtained from the parties to this litigation, including discovery sewed between Randall Smith and Plaintiff. The discovery documents exchanged in the litigation are authenticated by the signature of the party making the responses to the Verification attached to the Responses. The Responses are signed by counsel for Smith, which signature is a verification under CCP section 128.7 that the responses and documents attached thereto are not presented for an improper purpose. The proof of service includes a statement, under oath, that they were delivered to the party identified in the proof of service, to wit, Plaintiff's counse|’s office. The responses, with the three layers of statements/verifications made under oath by three separate persons (Smith, counsel, and'counsel’s staff) along with the fact the responses were obtained by a party to this case are sufficient grounds to give the declarant a basis (making him competent) to state that the attached responses were “served on Plaintiff on March 30, 2016” and that they include “documents produced by Smith.” Plaintiff’s Obiection to Exhibit B: Exhibit B to the declaration is objected to as being hearsay and not properly authenticated by a competent witness. Response to Obiection to Exhibit B: As stated above, the responses, with the three layers of statements/verifications made under oath by three separate persons (Smith, counsel, and counsel’s staff) along with the fact thé responses were obtained by a party to this case are sufficient grounds to giVe the declarant a basis (making him competent) to state that the attached responses were “served on Plaintiffon March 30, 2016” and that they include “documents produced by Smith." For the same reasons, the verified discovery responses, signed by counsel and BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.'S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE _2_ THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD sewed under penalty of perjury are not hearsay. Further, as lnterrogatory and Request for Admissions responses are admissible under CACI 209 and 210, verified responses to Request for Production should be similarly admissible. Finally, the discovery responses are admissible as business records. The OQOmNCDU'l-bLONA Responses to Request for Production attached as Exhibit B to the moving papers are a (1) writing made in the regular course of the responding pafly’s counsel's business (responding to discovery is part of an attorney’s business in litigation); (2) the verification of the responding party and the verification on the proof of service show that the responses and A the documents provided were made at or near the time recorded, March 30, 2016; (3) the A —\ responding party, Randall Smith, states, under oath, that he is aware of the document and AN its contents; and (4) verified discovery responses with a proof of service in litigation are the 00 _\ type of record that indicates the document’s trustworthiness. (California Evidence Code Ak section 1271.) U1 _\ Under any of the three foregoing reasons, the Randall Smith discovery responses O) .4. attached as Exhibit B to the moving papers are not hearsay and are fully admissible by this \l ._\ Court to demonstrate that as of March 30, 2016, Plaintiff knew Battery Systems was in the _\ stream of commerce of the sale of the eight batteries that were the subject of the injuries he (0/08 .._\ alleged were the result of a defective product in his Complaint, filed in 2015. NO Declaration Paragragh 7: N —\ Smith produced a copy of an invoice from Battery Systems dated May 3, NN 2012, (the “Battery Systems Invoice") at page 6 of Smith‘s Discovery N CD Responses. N -l> Plaintiff's Obiection to Paraqraph 7: [\J U'l Paragraph 7 of the declaration is objected to as being hearsay beyond the |\J 0') personal kriowledge of the declaration. \l [\J Resgonse to Obiection: |\J (D Counsel for Battery Systems obtained from counsel for Trojan, copies of the BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.’S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE -3- THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD discovery and pleadings he obtained from the parties to this litigation, including discovery served between Randall Smith and Plaintiff. Smith's verified response to Request No. 4 states that at page six is the “Battery Systems invoice for the replacement batteries.” The discovery documents exchanged in the litigation are authenticated by the signature of the party making the responses to the Verification attached to the Responses. The Responses cooofloum-bmma are signed by counsel for Smith, which signature is a verification under CCP section 128.7 that the responses 'and documents attached thereto are not presented for an improper purpose. The proof of service includes a statement, under oath, that they were delivered to the party identified in the proof of service, to wit, Plaintiffs counse|’s office. The responses, with the three layers of statements/verifications made under oath by three separate persons (Smith, counsel, and counsel’s staff) along with the fact the responses were obtained by a party to this case are sufficient grounds to give the declarant a basis (making him competent) to state that the attached responses were “served on Plaintiff on March 30, 2016” and that they include “documents produced by Smith." Further, as lnterrogatory and Request for Admissions responses are admissible under CACI 209 and 210, verified responses to Request for Production should be similarly admissible. Finally, the discovery responses are admissible as business records. The Responses NMNNNNNNN-AAAAA-LAAAA to Request for Production attached as Exhibit B to the moving papers are a (1) GDNOCD-bQJNAOCOCDNCDm-POONAO writing made in the regular course of the responding party’s counsel's business (responding to discovery is pan of an attorney’s business in litigation); (2) the verification of the responding party and the verification on the proof of service show that the responses and the documents provided were made at or near the time recorded, March 30, 2016; (3) the responding party, Randall Smith, states, under oath, that he is aware of the document and its contents; and (4) verified discovery responses with a proof of service in litigation are the type of record that indicates the document's trustworthiness. (California Evidence Code section 1271.) BATTERY SYSTEMS, |NC.'S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE -4- THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD Under any of the three foregoing reasons, the Randall Smith discovery responses attached as Exhibit B to the moving papers are not hearsay and are fully admissible by this Court to demonstrate that as of March 30, 2016, Plaintiff knew Battery Systems was in the stream of commerce of the sale of the eight batteries that were the subject of the injuries he alleged were the (OGJNQCh-P-(JONA result of a defective product in his Complaint, filed in 2015. Plaintiff’s Obiection to Exhibit C: Exhibit C to the declaration is objected to as being hearsay and not properly authenticated by a competent witness. Response to Obiection to Exhibit C: Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Amendment to Insert True Name of Fictitiously Named Defendant (CCP § 474), filed August 2, 2018. This is a pleading, and as such, is so inherently reliable, it is entitled to judicial notice under California Evidence Code section 452(d)(1). Further, the copy attached as Exhibit C is the copy served on Battery Systems by Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot now question the authenticity or admissibility of a pleading he caused to be served on Battery Systems. DATED: NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA September 25, mNODCD-bOONAOQOOONOUU'l-PUDNAO 2018 By: g LAW OFFICE TED OF NANCY VITALE DANIEL WOOD Counsel for Battery Defendant Systems, Inc. BATTERY SYSTEMS, mars, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE _5_ THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD ‘PROOF OF SERVICE [C.C.P. §§ 1013a AND 2015.5] CASE NAME: KRISHNA v. SMITH, ET AL. COURT I NO: BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT#165145 l, the undersigned, declare as follows: l am employed OfiQCDNOUCfi-hOONA in the County of Sacramento, State of California. l am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 11290 Pyrites Way, Suite 210, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6338. On this date I served the attached, BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.’S REPLY TO v PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD addressed as follows: Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Def. Randall Smith Louis G. Beary, Esq. Gavan R. Munter, Esq. Scranton Law Firm Tiza Serrano Thompson & Assoc. 980 9th Street #2250 2450 Stanwel! Dr. ‘ Concord, CA 94520 Sacramento, CA 95814 925-602-2727 916-561-2780 Fax: 925-676-9999 v Fax: 1855-886-5559 Counsel for Def. Morning Star Corp. Counsel for X-Def. Troian Battery James r. Pagliero, Esq. Comgany, LLC Pagliero & Assoc. Douglas M. Kilduff, Esq. 5701 Marconi Ave., Ste. A Ericksen Arbuthnot Carmichael, CA 95608 100 Howe Ave., Ste. 110 South 916-481-7100 NNNNNNNNNAA-A-A-AA-A-AA-L Sacramento, CA 95825 Fax: 916-481-7101 916-483-5181 FaX: 916-483-7558 Counsel for Def. Steve Ahnmark dba Ahnmark Marine (IJNCDUIbUJNAOLOOONOUUI-POJNA Marisa G. Huber, Esq. Gibson Robb & Lindh LLP 201 Mission street #2700 San Francisco, CA 94105 415-348-6000 Fax: 415-348-6001 X (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) By causing a true copy and/0r original thereof to be personally delivered via the following overnight courier service: Federal Express. [CCP section 1013] BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC.'S, REPLY TO PLAINT!FF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE _6_ THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD _ listed (BY FACSIMILE) parties. Said | caused transmission was a true facsimile reported as to complete be electronically and transmitted without error. A copy to the of the transmission report shall be kept within the e-fax database of this company. The original of this document will be served on the Document Depository herein via U.S. Postal Service pursuant to the above paragraph if called for pursuant to Pre-Trial Order or Civil Code. I declare (OCDNCDCDAQJNA under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct‘ Executed on SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, at Rancho Cordoya, California. MA'RCI Sr. BAKER WNQCH-POONAOCOOONCDUILOONAO NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC/S, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PAGE _7_ THE DECLARATION OF TED DANIEL WOOD