Preview
1/27/2021
1 KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676)
2 stevem@knightlaw.com
Deepak Devabose (SBN 298890)
3
deepakd@knightlaw.com
4 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
5 Telephone: (310) 552-2250
6 Fax: (310) 552-7973
7 WIRTZ LAW APC
Richard M. Wirtz (SBN 137812)
8 rwirtz@wirtzlaw.com
9 Amy R. Rotman (SBN 286128)
arotman@wirtzlaw.com
10 Jessica R. Underwood (SBN 306481)
junderwood@wirtzlaw.com
11 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800
12 San Diego, California 92122
Telephone: 858.259.5009
13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
14 DAVID FERGUS TAGGART and
15 MICHELE TAGGART
16 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
17 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
18
DAVID FERGUS TAGGART and Case No.: CIV538275
19 MICHELE TAGGART,
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY
20 OBJECTIONS TO THE
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P.
21 VILCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF
vs. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
22 STRIKE/TAX PLAINTIFFS’
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
23
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Hearing Date: February 9, 2021
24 inclusive, Time: 2:00 p.m.
25 Dept.: 4
Defendants.
26
27
28
-1-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
1 Objection No. 1: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 3:
2 “In March of 2019, the matter settled for $170,000 at the Mandatory Settlement
3 Conference. By August 5, 2019, the settlement agreement and release (“SAR”) had been fully
4 executed. The SAR does not deem Plaintiffs “the prevailing parties,” but just allows for the
5 recouping of costs under Civil Code section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Act. Attached hereto as
6 Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the (redacted) Settlement Agreement
7 and Release.”
8 Grounds for Objection:
9 a. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant
10 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are
11 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits
12 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]).
13 b. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see,
14 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts
15 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially
16 where it is self-serving]).
17 c. ¶ 3 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200).
18 d. Best Evidence Rule.
19
20 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
21
22 Objection No. 2: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 5:
23 “On December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to reset the trial date,
24 which attached their Motion to Reset Trial for the substantive argument in support thereof. The
25 Court denied the Ex Parte Application outright as there were no exigent circumstances for the
26 Motion to be heard on shortened time. However, the substantive argument for the Application
27 was the same Motion, supra, that was ultimately found to be deceptive and potentially
28 sanctionable.”
///
-2-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
1 Grounds for Objection:
2 a. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant
3 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are
4 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits
5 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]).
6 b. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see,
7 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts
8 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially
9 where it is self-serving]).
10 c. ¶ 5 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200).
11 d. Best Evidence Rule.
12
13 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
14
15 Objection No. 3: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 6:
16 “Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4924-Ford Motor Transmission cases is a
17 group of Northern California coordinated cases that address essentially the same causes of action
18 and facts (relating to the purported defects in the DPS6 transmission) that are asserted in the instant
19 action. On December 28, 2018, Ford filed a Petition for Coordination of Add-On Cases in JCCP
20 4924, in Sacramento County Superior Court, addressing the addition of the instant matter to JCCP
21 4924, as well as three additional cases. The Motion was heard in the Sacramento Superior Court,
22 in JCCP 4924, before the Coordination Judge who presides over those cases. Nothing was filed in
23 this action except a Notice to the Court that the Petition was to be filed.”
24 Grounds for Objection:
25 a. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant
26 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are
27 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits
28 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]).
b. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see,
-3-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
1 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts
2 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially
3 where it is self-serving]).
4 c. ¶ 6 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200).
5 d. Best Evidence Rule.
6
7 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
8
9 Objection No. 4: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 9:
10 “Plaintiff’s counsel has disclosed Dr. Luna as an expert in the Dennis Buck, et al. v. Ford
11 Motor Company, Stanislaus County Superior Court, Case No. 208745, Kathleen Ann Lytle v. Ford
12 Motor Company, Shasta County Superior Court, Case No. 187076, Lynetta Belmore, et al. v. Ford
13 Motor Company, Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 17CECG01300, Timothy D. Murphy v.
14 Ford Motor Company, Placer County Superior Court, Case No. SCV0037046, Anthony R. Bartlett
15 v. Ford Motor Company, Monterey County Superior Court, Case No. 16CV003488, and Tracey
16 Matthews, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2015-
17 0018700. In the Buck, Lytle, Belmore, Murphy, Bartlett and Matthews matters, the plaintiffs
18 alleged a fraud-based cause of action. Plaintiffs’ counsel has not disclosed Dr. Luna as an expert
19 in Karen L. Vanvleet, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No.
20 19CIV02347, and Lawrence G. Larson v. Ford Motor Company, Los Angeles County Superior
21 Court, Case No. BC664225. In the Vanvleet matter, the plaintiffs did not allege a fraud-based cause
22 of action. In the Larson action, fraud-based causes of action have been asserted, but the parties
23 have been ordered to arbitrate these causes of action. As such, the parties are going to trial on the
24 Song-Beverly causes of action alone, and accordingly Plaintiffs have not designated Dr. Luna, or
25 any other fraud expert.”
26 Grounds for Objection:
27 a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis
28 for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and
fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the
-4-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
1 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d)
2 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal
3 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively
4 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the …
5 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4
6 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6).
7 b. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant
8 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are
9 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits
10 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]).
11 c. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see,
12 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts
13 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially
14 where it is self-serving]).
15 d. Irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, §§ 350 & 352).
16 e. ¶ 9 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200).
17 f. Speculation (Evid. Code §702).
18 g. Best Evidence Rule.
19
20 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
21
22 Objection No. 5: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 10:
23 “Dr. Luna’s deposition took place on April 3, 2017. The deposition began at 11:05 a.m.
24 and finished at 12:56 p.m. On March 22, 2017, Ford issued payment for Dr. Luna’s invoice for
25 attending the deposition in the amount of $1,485.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and
26 correct copy of the proof of payment.”
27 Grounds for Objection:
28 e. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis
for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and
-5-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
1 fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the
2 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d)
3 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal
4 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively
5 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the …
6 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4
7 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6).
8 f. Speculation (Evid. Code §702).
9
10 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
11
12 Objection No. 6: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 11:
13 “I have reviewed the hours billed by Dr. Luna for preparation in four (4) other DPS6
14 transmission cases with the same Fraud-Based Causes of Action alleged, and essentially the same
15 fraud-related facts asserted, as is in this matter. The hours billed are as follows:
Case Date Hours Amount
16 TAGGART 3/17/2017 39.25 $11,208.75
ARROYO 2/17/2019 35.5 $6,831.70
17
LYTLE 4/11/2018 38.5 5,459.25
18 BARTLETT 11/21/2017 4.5 $2,227.50
MURPHY 10/30/2017 12.5 $2,497.50
19
The above amount billed for preparing for the first deposition in Taggart does not even account
20
for the additional 20+ hours (totaling an additional $3,800.25) which were purportedly billed on
21
March 8, 2019 for “preparation” of the second deposition that did not occur. In total, the costs
22
associated with Dr. Luna, as set forth in the Memorandum of Costs, totals $19,697.72.”
23
Grounds for Objection:
24
a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis
25
for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and
26
fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the
27
declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d)
28
[“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal
-6-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
1 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively
2 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the …
3 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4
4 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6).
5 b. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant
6 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are
7 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits
8 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]).
9 c. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see,
10 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts
11 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially
12 where it is self-serving]).
13 d. ¶ 12 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200).
14 e. Speculation (Evid. Code §702).
15 f. Best Evidence Rule.
16
17 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
18
19 Objection No. 7: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 13:
20 “On March 28, 2017, Mr. Lepper conducted a Vehicle Inspection, for which Plaintiffs are
21 alleging costs of $1,166.09 for 6.7 hours. On April 4, 2017, his deposition was taken, his
22 deposition was taken, for which Plaintiffs are alleging costs of $977.89 for 9 hours”
23 Grounds for Objection:
24 a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis
25 for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and
26 fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the
27 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d)
28 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal
knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively
-7-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
1 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the …
2 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4
3 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6).
4 b. ¶ 14 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200).
5 c. Speculation (Evid. Code §702).
6 d. Best Evidence Rule.
7
8 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
9
10 Objection No. 8: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 14:
11 “Mr. Lepper’s deposition took place on April 4, 2017. The deposition began at 10:00 a.m.
12 and finished at 12:14 p.m. On March 22, 2017, Ford issued payment for Mr. Lepper’s invoice for
13 attending the deposition in the amount of $825.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and
14 correct copy of the proof of payment.”
15 Grounds for Objection:
16 a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis
17 for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and
18 fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the
19 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d)
20 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal
21 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively
22 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the …
23 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4
24 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6).
25 b. Irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, §§ 350 & 352).
26 c. Speculation (Evid. Code §702).
27
28 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
-8-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
1 Objection No. 9: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 14:
2 “Each deposition taken in this matter occurred within 75 miles of the San Mateo County
3 Superior Court. Specifically, the Plaintiffs and expert’s depositions were taken in San Francisco
4 at the offices of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. The dealership witness deposition were
5 taken in Redwood City.”
6 Grounds for Objection:
7 a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis
8 for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and
9 fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the
10 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d)
11 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal
12 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively
13 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the …
14 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4
15 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6).
16 b. Irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, §§ 350 & 352).
17 c. Speculation (Evid. Code §702).
18
19 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
20
21 Objection No. 10: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 16:
22 “On May 3, 2018, Ford filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer seeking to
23 admit liability as to the Song-Beverly causes of action. And, despite this significantly advancing
24 Plaintiffs’ successful prosecution of their Song-Beverly Claims, Plaintiffs opposed this Motion.
25 Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Ford’s Motion for Leave to File an
26 Amended Answer.”
27 Grounds for Objection:
28 a. Irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, §§ 350 & 352).
b. ¶ 4 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200).
-9-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
1 c. Speculation (Evid. Code §702).
2 d. Best Evidence Rule.
3
4 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled
5
6 Dated: January 27, 2021 KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
7
__________________________
8 Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676)
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
9
DAVID FERGUS TAGGART and
10 MICHELE TAGGART
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ
Preview
1/27/2021 1 KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676) 2 stevem@knightlaw.com Deepak Devabose (SBN 298890) 3 deepakd@knightlaw.com 4 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 5 Telephone: (310) 552-2250 6 Fax: (310) 552-7973 7 WIRTZ LAW APC Richard M. Wirtz (SBN 137812) 8 rwirtz@wirtzlaw.com 9 Amy R. Rotman (SBN 286128) arotman@wirtzlaw.com 10 Jessica R. Underwood (SBN 306481) junderwood@wirtzlaw.com 11 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800 12 San Diego, California 92122 Telephone: 858.259.5009 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 14 DAVID FERGUS TAGGART and 15 MICHELE TAGGART 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 17 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 18 DAVID FERGUS TAGGART and Case No.: CIV538275 19 MICHELE TAGGART, PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY 20 OBJECTIONS TO THE Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. 21 VILCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF vs. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 22 STRIKE/TAX PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware 23 Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Hearing Date: February 9, 2021 24 inclusive, Time: 2:00 p.m. 25 Dept.: 4 Defendants. 26 27 28 -1- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ 1 Objection No. 1: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 3: 2 “In March of 2019, the matter settled for $170,000 at the Mandatory Settlement 3 Conference. By August 5, 2019, the settlement agreement and release (“SAR”) had been fully 4 executed. The SAR does not deem Plaintiffs “the prevailing parties,” but just allows for the 5 recouping of costs under Civil Code section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Act. Attached hereto as 6 Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the (redacted) Settlement Agreement 7 and Release.” 8 Grounds for Objection: 9 a. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant 10 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are 11 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits 12 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]). 13 b. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see, 14 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts 15 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially 16 where it is self-serving]). 17 c. ¶ 3 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200). 18 d. Best Evidence Rule. 19 20 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled 21 22 Objection No. 2: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 5: 23 “On December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to reset the trial date, 24 which attached their Motion to Reset Trial for the substantive argument in support thereof. The 25 Court denied the Ex Parte Application outright as there were no exigent circumstances for the 26 Motion to be heard on shortened time. However, the substantive argument for the Application 27 was the same Motion, supra, that was ultimately found to be deceptive and potentially 28 sanctionable.” /// -2- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ 1 Grounds for Objection: 2 a. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant 3 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are 4 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits 5 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]). 6 b. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see, 7 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts 8 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially 9 where it is self-serving]). 10 c. ¶ 5 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200). 11 d. Best Evidence Rule. 12 13 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled 14 15 Objection No. 3: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 6: 16 “Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4924-Ford Motor Transmission cases is a 17 group of Northern California coordinated cases that address essentially the same causes of action 18 and facts (relating to the purported defects in the DPS6 transmission) that are asserted in the instant 19 action. On December 28, 2018, Ford filed a Petition for Coordination of Add-On Cases in JCCP 20 4924, in Sacramento County Superior Court, addressing the addition of the instant matter to JCCP 21 4924, as well as three additional cases. The Motion was heard in the Sacramento Superior Court, 22 in JCCP 4924, before the Coordination Judge who presides over those cases. Nothing was filed in 23 this action except a Notice to the Court that the Petition was to be filed.” 24 Grounds for Objection: 25 a. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant 26 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are 27 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits 28 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]). b. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see, -3- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ 1 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts 2 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially 3 where it is self-serving]). 4 c. ¶ 6 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200). 5 d. Best Evidence Rule. 6 7 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled 8 9 Objection No. 4: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 9: 10 “Plaintiff’s counsel has disclosed Dr. Luna as an expert in the Dennis Buck, et al. v. Ford 11 Motor Company, Stanislaus County Superior Court, Case No. 208745, Kathleen Ann Lytle v. Ford 12 Motor Company, Shasta County Superior Court, Case No. 187076, Lynetta Belmore, et al. v. Ford 13 Motor Company, Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 17CECG01300, Timothy D. Murphy v. 14 Ford Motor Company, Placer County Superior Court, Case No. SCV0037046, Anthony R. Bartlett 15 v. Ford Motor Company, Monterey County Superior Court, Case No. 16CV003488, and Tracey 16 Matthews, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2015- 17 0018700. In the Buck, Lytle, Belmore, Murphy, Bartlett and Matthews matters, the plaintiffs 18 alleged a fraud-based cause of action. Plaintiffs’ counsel has not disclosed Dr. Luna as an expert 19 in Karen L. Vanvleet, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 20 19CIV02347, and Lawrence G. Larson v. Ford Motor Company, Los Angeles County Superior 21 Court, Case No. BC664225. In the Vanvleet matter, the plaintiffs did not allege a fraud-based cause 22 of action. In the Larson action, fraud-based causes of action have been asserted, but the parties 23 have been ordered to arbitrate these causes of action. As such, the parties are going to trial on the 24 Song-Beverly causes of action alone, and accordingly Plaintiffs have not designated Dr. Luna, or 25 any other fraud expert.” 26 Grounds for Objection: 27 a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis 28 for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the -4- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ 1 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d) 2 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal 3 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively 4 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the … 5 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4 6 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6). 7 b. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant 8 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are 9 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits 10 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]). 11 c. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see, 12 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts 13 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially 14 where it is self-serving]). 15 d. Irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, §§ 350 & 352). 16 e. ¶ 9 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200). 17 f. Speculation (Evid. Code §702). 18 g. Best Evidence Rule. 19 20 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled 21 22 Objection No. 5: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 10: 23 “Dr. Luna’s deposition took place on April 3, 2017. The deposition began at 11:05 a.m. 24 and finished at 12:56 p.m. On March 22, 2017, Ford issued payment for Dr. Luna’s invoice for 25 attending the deposition in the amount of $1,485.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and 26 correct copy of the proof of payment.” 27 Grounds for Objection: 28 e. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and -5- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ 1 fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the 2 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d) 3 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal 4 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively 5 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the … 6 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4 7 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6). 8 f. Speculation (Evid. Code §702). 9 10 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled 11 12 Objection No. 6: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 11: 13 “I have reviewed the hours billed by Dr. Luna for preparation in four (4) other DPS6 14 transmission cases with the same Fraud-Based Causes of Action alleged, and essentially the same 15 fraud-related facts asserted, as is in this matter. The hours billed are as follows: Case Date Hours Amount 16 TAGGART 3/17/2017 39.25 $11,208.75 ARROYO 2/17/2019 35.5 $6,831.70 17 LYTLE 4/11/2018 38.5 5,459.25 18 BARTLETT 11/21/2017 4.5 $2,227.50 MURPHY 10/30/2017 12.5 $2,497.50 19 The above amount billed for preparing for the first deposition in Taggart does not even account 20 for the additional 20+ hours (totaling an additional $3,800.25) which were purportedly billed on 21 March 8, 2019 for “preparation” of the second deposition that did not occur. In total, the costs 22 associated with Dr. Luna, as set forth in the Memorandum of Costs, totals $19,697.72.” 23 Grounds for Objection: 24 a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis 25 for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and 26 fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the 27 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d) 28 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal -6- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ 1 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively 2 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the … 3 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4 4 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6). 5 b. The statements are argumentative and not appropriate for a declaration meant 6 to attest to facts based upon personal knowledge. The statements are 7 conclusory. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ["Affidavits 8 which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient"]). 9 c. The statements constitute inadmissible opinion. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 801; see, 10 Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [failure to state facts 11 upon which opinion is based may warrant disregard of opinion, especially 12 where it is self-serving]). 13 d. ¶ 12 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200). 14 e. Speculation (Evid. Code §702). 15 f. Best Evidence Rule. 16 17 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled 18 19 Objection No. 7: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 13: 20 “On March 28, 2017, Mr. Lepper conducted a Vehicle Inspection, for which Plaintiffs are 21 alleging costs of $1,166.09 for 6.7 hours. On April 4, 2017, his deposition was taken, his 22 deposition was taken, for which Plaintiffs are alleging costs of $977.89 for 9 hours” 23 Grounds for Objection: 24 a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis 25 for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and 26 fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the 27 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d) 28 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively -7- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ 1 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the … 2 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4 3 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6). 4 b. ¶ 14 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200). 5 c. Speculation (Evid. Code §702). 6 d. Best Evidence Rule. 7 8 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled 9 10 Objection No. 8: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 14: 11 “Mr. Lepper’s deposition took place on April 4, 2017. The deposition began at 10:00 a.m. 12 and finished at 12:14 p.m. On March 22, 2017, Ford issued payment for Mr. Lepper’s invoice for 13 attending the deposition in the amount of $825.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and 14 correct copy of the proof of payment.” 15 Grounds for Objection: 16 a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis 17 for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and 18 fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the 19 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d) 20 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal 21 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively 22 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the … 23 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4 24 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6). 25 b. Irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, §§ 350 & 352). 26 c. Speculation (Evid. Code §702). 27 28 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled -8- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ 1 Objection No. 9: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 14: 2 “Each deposition taken in this matter occurred within 75 miles of the San Mateo County 3 Superior Court. Specifically, the Plaintiffs and expert’s depositions were taken in San Francisco 4 at the offices of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. The dealership witness deposition were 5 taken in Redwood City.” 6 Grounds for Objection: 7 a. The statements lack foundation, in that the declaration fails to establish a basis 8 for personal knowledge of the declarant as to any of the matters asserted, and 9 fails to proffer any preliminary evidence to lay the foundation for the 10 declarant’s assertions. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 702; see Code Civ. Proc. § 473c(d) 11 [“Supporting … declarations shall be made by any person on personal 12 knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively 13 that the affiant is competent to testify in the matters stated in the … 14 declarations”]; Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Serv. Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4 15 Cal.3d 842, 851 fn. 6). 16 b. Irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, §§ 350 & 352). 17 c. Speculation (Evid. Code §702). 18 19 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled 20 21 Objection No. 10: To Declaration of Katherine P. Vilchez ¶ 16: 22 “On May 3, 2018, Ford filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer seeking to 23 admit liability as to the Song-Beverly causes of action. And, despite this significantly advancing 24 Plaintiffs’ successful prosecution of their Song-Beverly Claims, Plaintiffs opposed this Motion. 25 Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Ford’s Motion for Leave to File an 26 Amended Answer.” 27 Grounds for Objection: 28 a. Irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, §§ 350 & 352). b. ¶ 4 is hearsay (Evid. Code §1200). -9- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ 1 c. Speculation (Evid. Code §702). 2 d. Best Evidence Rule. 3 4 _________ Sustained __________ Overruled 5 6 Dated: January 27, 2021 KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP 7 __________________________ 8 Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676) Attorney for Plaintiffs, 9 DAVID FERGUS TAGGART and 10 MICHELE TAGGART 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10- PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P. VILCHEZ