Motion for New Trial in Newton, Patsy et al vs. Enloe Medical Center| Trellis.Law

On May 29, 2020 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Bolen, Suzanne, Newton, Harold, Newton, Patsy, and Enloe Medical Center, for (35) Unlimited Other non-PI/PD/WD Tort in the District Court of Butte County.

Preview
F ﬁlmiﬂ (hurt d Gaim'lin F
ROBERT H. ZIMMERMAN, BAR No. 84345 cm" "'5‘“
SCHUERING ZIMMERMAN & DOYLE, LLP | I

400 University Avenue L 11/4/2021 L
Sacramento, California 95825-6502
(916) 567-0400 E E
FAX: 568-0400 D D

Attorneys for Defendant ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER
ﬁr
m DEW?

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE

IO PATSY NEWTON, individually; HAROLD NO. 20CV01091
NEWTON, individually; SUZANNE
II BOLDEN, individually, ASSIGNED TO JUDGE TAMARA L.
MOSBARGER FOR ALL PURPOSES
I2 Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANT‘S RESPONSE TO
13 vs. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
I4 CENTER; and DOES l - FOR NEW TRIAL
eta .,
EONLOEIMEDICAL
,
I5 Date: November IO, 2021
Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m.
16 Dept: I
Judge: Hon. Tamra L. Mosbarger
l7
18 Defendant ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER hereby responds to plaintiffs’ evidentiary

19 to the declaration of Cedric Rucker as follows:
objections
20 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
21 Objection to 1i l, 19-20:
22 have of the facts stated herein.” (Rucker Declaration I.)
‘II
“I person knowledge
23 Grounds for Objection:
24 Mr. Rucker’s statement lacks foundation throughout and calls for speculation as

25 of other jurors. See Cal. Evid. Code § 402(a)(2); Cal. Evid.
to the deliberative process
26 Code § 702(a).
27 Mr. Rucker’s statement is also inadmissible under California Evidence
Further,
28 Code section 1150 because it constitutes evidence of a juror’s internal thought process.

01400695.WPD I

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECT IONS TO EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
“No evidence is admissible to show the effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or

event upon a juror either in inﬂuencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or

concerning the mental processes by which itwas determined.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1 150(a);

People U. Hedgecock, 51 Cal.3d 395, 418-19 (1990). “This limitation prevents one juror from

upsetting a verdict of the whole jury by impugning his own or his fellow jurors’ mental

processes or reasons for assent or dissent.” People u. Hutchinson, 71 Cal.2d 342, 350

(1969). Further, evidence is admissible to impeach a verdict only if the evidence refers

to objectively ascertainable statements, conduct, conditions, or events. Cal. Evid. Code

§ 1150(a); ln re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273, 294 (1999).

10 Response to Objection:
The declarant has personal knowledge as set forth in paragraph l of the

12 declaration. He personally witnessed the entirety of the trial and was present at the time

13 statements were made and has personal knowledge of the deliberations as he was

14 present.
15 Objection to ‘ll 2, 19-20:

16 “After extended deliberations, a vote was taken and the jury answered the question

to 3 votes in favor of the defendant. At that time, lbelieve the verdict form was
17 9 votes
”
18 completed by the jury foreperson, Lacey Robinson. (Rucker Declaration 112, 19-20.)

19 Grounds for Objection:
Mr. Rucker’s statement lacks foundation throughout and calls for speculation as
20
of other jurors and as to whether or not a verdict form was
21 to the deliberative process
the See Cal. Evid. Code § 402(a)(2); Cal. Evid. Code §
22 completed by jury foreperson.
Mr. Rucker’s statement is also inadmissible under California Evidence
23 702(a). Further,
24 Code section 1150 because it constitutes evidence of a juror’s internal thought process.

to show the effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or
25 “No evidence is admissible
a juror either in him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or
26 event upon inﬂuencing
27 concerning the mental processes by which it was determined.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1 150(a);

51 Cal.3d 395, 418-19 (1990). “This limitation prevents one juror
28 People v. Hedgecock,

01400695.WPD 2

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS‘ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
from upsetting a verdict of the whole jury by impugning his own or his fellow jurors’
” Cal.2d 342,
mental processes or reasons for assent or dissent. People v. Hutchinson, 71

350 (1969). Further, evidence is admissible to impeach a verdict only if the evidence

refers to objectively ascertainable statements, conduct, conditions, or events. Cal. Evid.

Code § 1150(a); In re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273, 294 (1999); Gorman v. Leftwich, 218

Cal.App.3d l4], 146 (1990); De Vera v. Long Beach Pub. Transportation Co., 180

Cal.App.3d 782, 796-97 (1986); Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America, 38 Cal.3d 892, 909-10

(1985). “This limitation prevents one juror from upsetting a verdict of the whole jury by
his own or his fellow mental processes or reasons for assent or
impugning jurors’
10 dissent.” People v. Hutchinson, 71 Cal.2d 342, 350 (1969).

11 ln Gorman, the Court held that statements by juror declarations that the jury did

12 not vote on causation were inadmissible because they were evidence of the jury’s internal

13 thought process. Gorman, 218 Cal.App.3d at 146. According to the Court, the “policy in

14 favor of ensuring the stability of verdicts and protecting jurors against harassment compels

15 the rejection of the two declarations which allege the jurors did not vote on causation.”

Id. ln De the Court rejected statements by juror declarations that the jury did not
16 Vera,
17 decide whether the accident at issue in the case was a hit-and-run because they

of a internal De Vera, 180 Cal.App.3d at
18 constituted evidence juror’s thought process.
“Defendant to declarations of two jurors offered in
19 796-97. As the Court noted, points
motion for new trial as establishing that the jury failed to resolve
20 support of defendant’s
the whether the accident was hit-and-run. The declarations are identical,
21 question
22 conclusory, and purport to report the thought processes by which the jury collectively

23 arrived at its verdict. Of necessity, the declaring jurors purport to appreciate the individual
their own. Such evidence is
24 thought processes of their fellow jurors, as well as to report
25 not admissible under Evidence Code section 1150.” Id.

26 ln Sanchez-Corea, the Court rejected statements by a juror declaration that no jury

27 vote was taken on the defendant’s liability, and she (juror) did not agree to liability but

28 that she voted for damages as a compromise because she thought that liability had been

01400695.WPD 3

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1N

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
decided because they constituted evidence of a juror’s internal thought process.
Sanchez-Cored U. Bank of America, 38 Cal.3d 892, 909-10. As the Court noted, the juror’s

“declaration dealt only with jurors’ mental processes and reasons for assent or dissent

and was inadmissible for purposes of undermining the verdict.” Id. at 910.

Response to Objection:
This portion of the declaration objected to does not deal with the mental processes
of the jurors. This is an objective recitation of what transpired during the deliberations.

There is no information concerning the jury’s collective thought process.

Objection to ‘ll 3, 1-4:

10 “Following the vote, three jurors, including juror 6, Patty Standley, stated that they

11 would not be able to award plaintiff any money if the jury answered “no” to question 3.

12 Ms. Stanley and the other two jurors stated that the jury should reread jury
instruction 418

13 regarding Title 22.” (Rucker Declaration, 1| 3, 1-4.)

14 Grounds for Objection:
See Cal. Evid.
15 Mr. Rucker’s statement lacks foundation and calls for speculation.

Evid. Code 702(a). Further, Mr. Rucker’s statement is also
16 Code § 402(a)(2); Cal. §
it constitutes evidence
17 inadmissible under California Evidence Code section l 150 because
of a juror’s internal thought process. “No evidence is admissible to
show the effect of such
18

or event upon a juror either in influencing him to assent
19 statement, conduct, condition,
verdict or the mental processes by which it was
20 to or dissent from the concerning
v. Hedgecock, 51 Cal.3d 395, 418-19
21 determined.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1150(a); People

“This limitation one juror from upsetting a verdict of the whole jury by
22 (1990). prevents
his fellow mental processes or reasons for assent or
23 impugning his own or jurors’

24 dissent.” People u. Hutchinson, 71 Cal.2d 342, 350 (1969). Further, evidence is admissible

refers to objectively ascertainable statements,
25 to impeach a verdict only if the evidence
Cal. Evid. Code § 1 150(a); In re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273,
26 conduct, conditions, or events.
27 294 (1999); Gorman U. Leftwich, 218 Cal.App.3d 141, 146 (1990); De Vera u. Long Beach

180 782, 796—97 (1986); Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of
28 Pub. Transportation Co., Cal.App.3d

01400695.WPD 4

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1N

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
“This limitation prevents one juror from upsetting
1234567009

America, 38 Cal. 3d 892, 909-10 (1985).
a verdict of the whole jury by impugning his own or his fellow jurors’ mental processes

or reasons for assent or dissent.” People v. Hutchinson, 7] Cal. 2d 342, 350 (1969).
In Gorman, the Court held that statements by juror declarations that the jury did

not vote on causation were inadmissible because they were evidence of the jury’s internal

thought process. Gorman, 218 Cal.App.3d at 146. According to the Court, the “policy in
favor of ensuring the stability of verdicts and protecting jurors against harassment compels

the rejection of the two declarations which allege the jurors did not vote on causation.”

Id. ln De Vera, the Court rejected statements by juror declarations that the jury did not

10 decide whether the accident at issue in the case was a hit-and-run because they

11 constituted evidence of a juror’s internal thought process. De Vera, 180 Cal.App.3d at

12 796-97. As the Court noted, “Defendant points to declarations of two jurors offered in

motion for new trial as establishing that the jury failed to resolve
13 support of defendant’s
14 the whether the accident was hit-and-run. The declarations are identical,
question
15 conclusory, and purport to report the thought processes by which the jury collectively

16 arrived at its verdict. Of necessity, the declaring jurors purport to appreciate the individual
their own. Such evidence is
17 thought processes of their fellow jurors, as well as to report
l8 not admissible under Evidence Code section 1150.” Id.
that no jury
19 In Sanchez-Cored, the Court rejected statements by a juror declaration

20 vote was taken on the defendant’s liability, and she (juror) did not agree to liability but
had been
21 that she voted for damages as a compromise because she thought that liability

22 decided because they constituted evidence of a juror’s internal thought process.

Bank of America, 38 Cal.3d 892, 909-10. As the Court noted, the juror’s
23 Sanchez-Corea v.
mental and reasons for assent or dissent
24 “declaration dealt only with jurors’ processes
25 and was inadmissible for purposes of undermining the verdict.” Id. at 910.

26 Response to Objection:

27 This portion of the declaration objected to does not deal with the mental processes
28 of the jurors. This is an objective recitation of what transpired during the deliberations.

01400695.WPD 5

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE lN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
There is no information concerning the jury’s collective thought process.
to 11 3, 4-6:
23

Obiection
“The jury then re-reviewed instruction 418. After an extended discussion regarding

a vote was taken and was votes to votes in favor of the
4567009

Instruction 418, 10 2 plaintiff.”

(Rucker Declaration 113, 4-6.)
Grounds for Objection:
Mr. Rucker’s statement lacks foundation and calls for speculation. See Cal. Evid.

Code § 402(a)(2); Cal. Evid. Code § 702(a). Further, Mr. Rucker’s statement is also

inadmissible under California Evidence Code section l l 50 because it constitutes evidence
10 of a juror’s internal thought process. “No evidence is admissible to show the effect of

such conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in inﬂuencing him to
11 statement,
12 assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was

Cal. Evid. Code 1150(a); People v. Hedgecock, 5] Cal.3d 395, 418-19
13 determined.” §

14 (1990). “This limitation prevents one juror from upsetting a verdict of the whole jury by

own or his fellow mental processes or reasons for assent or
15 impugning his jurors’

dissent.” v. Hutchinson, 71 Cal. 2d 342, 350 (1969). Further, evidence is
16 People
17 admissible to impeach a verdict only if the evidence refers to objectively ascertainable
Cal. Evid. Code l 150(a); In re Hamilton, 20
1s statements, conduct, conditions, or events. §

19 Cal.4th 273, 294 (1999); Gorman v. Leftwich, 218 Cal.App.3d 141, 146 (1990); De Vera u.

180 Cal.App.3d 782, 796-97 (1986); Sanchez-Corea
20 Long Beach Pub. Transportation Co.,

21 v. Bank of America, 38 Cal.3d 892, 909-10 (1985). “This limitation prevents one juror from

of the whole his own or his fellow jurors’ mental
22 upsetting a verdict jury by impugning
for assent or dissent.” People U. Hutchinson, 71 Cal.2d 342, 350
23 processes or reasons

24 (1969).
25 ln Gorman, the Court held that statements by juror declarations that the jury did

26 notvote on causation were inadmissible because they were evidence of the jury’s internal

27 thought process. Gorman, 218 Cal.App.3d at 146. According to the Court, the “policy in

28 favor of ensuring the stability of verdicts and protecting jurors against harassment compels

01400695.WPD 6

DEFENDANT‘S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1N

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
the rejection of the two declarations which allege the jurors did not vote on causation.”

Id. ln De Vera, the Court rejected statements by juror declarations that the jury did not

decide whether the accident at issue in the case was a hit-and-run because they

constituted evidence of a juror’s internal thought process. De Vera, 180 Cal.App.3d at

796-97. As the Court noted, “Defendant points to declarations of two jurors offered in

motion for new trial as establishing that the jury failed to resolve
support of defendant’s
the question whether the accident was hit-and-run. The declarations are identical,

conclusory, and purport to report the thought processes by which the jury collectively

arrived at its verdict. Of necessity, the declaring jurors purport to appreciate the individual
their own. Such evidence is
IO thought processes of their fellow jurors, as well as to report
II not admissible under Evidence Code section 1150.” 1d.

no jury
12 ln Sanchez-Cored, the Court rejected statements by a juror declaration that

13 vote was taken on the defendant’s liability, and she (juror) did not agree to liability but
that liability had been
I4 that she voted for damages as a compromise because she thought

decided because constituted evidence of a juror’s internal thought process.
15 they
16 Sanchez—Coma u. Bank of America, 38 Cal.3d 892, 909-10. As the Court noted, the juror’s

dealt only with jurors’ mental processes and reasons for assent or dissent
17 “declaration
for purposes of undermining the verdict.” Id. at 910.
18 and was inadmissible

19 Response to Objection:
mental processes
20 This portion of the declaration objected to does not deal with the
recitation of what transpired during the deliberations.
21 of the jurors. This is an objective

22 There is no information concerning the jury’s collective thought process.

23 Objection to 1l 3, 5-8:
“The 10 found that defendant violated Title 22. No other jury instructions
24 jurors
25 were considered in answering question 3. At that point l believe the jury requested a new

to us by the court." (Rucker Declaration, 1l 3,5-8.)
26 verdict form, which was provided
27 ///
28 / //

01400695.WPD 7

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Grounds for Objection:
Mr. Rucker’s statement lacks foundation and calls for speculation. See Cal. Evid.

Code § 402(a)(2); Cal. Evid. Code § 702(a). Further, Mr. Rucker’s statement is also

inadmissible under California Evidence Code section l 150 because it constitutes evidence

of a juror’s internal thought process. “No evidence is admissible to show the effect of

such statement, conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in inﬂuencing him to

assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was

determined.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1150(a); PeOpIe v. Hedgecock, 51 Cal.3d 395, 4l8-19

(1990). “This limitation prevents one juror from upsetting a verdict of the whole jury by
10 his own or his fellow jurors’ mental processes or reasons for assent or
impugning
11 dissent.” People u. Hutchinson, 71 Cal.2d 342, 350 (1969). Further, evidence is admissible

12 to impeach a verdict only if the evidence refers to objectively ascertainable statements,

13 conduct, conditions, or events. Cal. Evid. Code § l 150(a); In re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273,

l4 294 (1999); Corman u. Leftwich, 218 Cal.App.3d l4], 146 (1990); De Vera u. Long Beach

180 782, 796-97 (1986); Sanchez-Corea U. Bank of
15 Pub. Transportation Co., Cal.App.3d

16 America, 38 Cal.3d 892, 909-10 (1985). “This limitation prevents one juror from upsetting
his own or his fellow jurors’ mental processes
l7 a verdict of the whole jury by impugning
Hutchinson, 71 Cal. 2d 342, 350 (1969).
18 or reasons for assent or dissent.” People u.

the Court held that statements by juror declarations that the jury did
19 ln Gorman,

20 notvote on causation were inadmissible because they were evidence of the jury’s internal

Gorman, 218 Cal.App.3d at 146. According to the Court, the “policy in
21 thought process.
harassment compels
22 favor of ensuring the stability of verdicts and protecting jurors against
two declarations which allege the jurors did not vote on causation.”
23 the rejection of the
that the jury did not
24 Id. ln De Vera, the Court rejected statements by juror declarations

whether the accident at issue in the case was a hit-and-run because they
25 decide
internal De Vera, 180 Cal.App.3d at
26 constituted evidence of a juror’s thought process.
“Defendant to declarations of two jurors offered in
27 796-97. As the Court noted, points
motion for new trial as establishing that the jury failed to resolve
28 support of defendant’s

01400695.WPD 8

DEFENDANT‘S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1N

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
the question whether the accident was hit-and-run. The declarations are identical,

conclusory, and purport to report the thought processes by which the jury collectively
arrived at its verdict. Of necessity, the declaring jurors purport to appreciate the individual

thought processes of their fellow jurors, as well as to report their own. Such evidence is

not admissible under Evidence Code section 1150.” Id.

ln Sanchez-Cored, the Court rejected statements by a juror declaration that no jury

vote was taken on the defendant’s liability, and she (juror) did not agree to liability but

that she voted for damages as a compromise because she thought that liability had been

decided because they constituted evidence of a juror's internal thought process.

10 Sanchez-Cored U. Bank of America, 38 Cal. 3d 892, 909-10. As the Court noted, the juror’s

“declaration dealt only with jurors’ mental processes and reasons for assent or dissent
11

12 and was inadmissible for purposes of undermining the verdict.” Id. at 910.

13 Response to Objection:
14 This portion of the declaration objected to does not deal with the mental processes
This is an objective recitation of what transpired during the deliberations.
15 of the jurors.

16 There is no information concerning the jury’s collective thought process.

17 Objection to ll 4. 9-12:
the deliberated was question 4.... The same ten jurors
18 “The next question jury

voted in favor of plaintiff. l voted “no.” There were no substantive deliberations regarding
19

20 how defendant’s violation of Title 22 caused harm to plaintiff. (Rucker Declaration ll 4,

21 9-12.)
22 Grounds for Objection:
See Cal. Evid.
23 Mr. Rucker’s statement lacks foundation and calls for speculation.

Code Further, Mr. Rucker’s statement is also
24 Code § 402(a)(2); Cal. Evid. § 702(a).
it constitutes evidence
25 inadmissible under California Evidence Code section l 150 because
“No evidence is admissible to show the effect of
26 of a juror’s internal thought process.
or event upon a juror either in influencing him to
27 such statement, conduct, condition,
which it was
28 assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by

01400695.WPD
9

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
determined.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1150(a); People v. Hedgecock, 5] Cal.3d 395, 418-19

“This a verdict of the whole jury by
234567009

(1990). limitation prevents one juror from upsetting

impugning his own or his fellow jurors’ mental processes or reasons for assent or

dissent.” People U. Hutchinson, 7] Cal.2d 342, 350 (1969). Further, evidence is admissible

to impeach a verdict only if the evidence refers to objectively ascertainable statements,

conduct, conditions, or events. Cal. Evid. Code § l150(a); In re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273,
294 (1999); Gorman v. Leftwich, 218 Cal.App.3d 141, 146 (1990); De Vera v. Long Beach

Pub. Transportation Co., 180 Cal.App.3d 782, 796-97 (1986); Sanchez-Cored v. Bank of

America, 38 Cal.3d 892, 909-10 (1985). “This limitation prevents one juror from upsetting

10 a verdict of the whole jury by impugning his own or his fellow jurors’ mental processes

n or reasons for assent or dissent.” People u. Hutchinson, 71 Cal. 2d 342, 350 (1969).

12 ln Gorman, the Court held that statements by juror declarations that the jury did

13 notvote on causation were inadmissible because they were evidence of the jury’s internal

Gorman, 218 Cal.App.3d at 146. According to the Court, the “policy in
14 thought process.
15 favor of ensuring the stability ofverdicts and protecting jurors against harassment compels
two declarations which allege the jurors did not vote on causation.”
16 the rejection of the
that the jury did not
17 Id. 1n De Vera, the Court rejected statements by juror declarations
accident at issue in the case was a hit-and-run because they
18 decide whether the
internal De Vera, 180 Cal.App.3d at
19 constituted evidence of a juror’s thought process.
to declarations of two jurors offered in
20 796—97. As the Court noted, “Defendant points
motion for new trial as establishing that the jury failed to resolve
21 support of defendant’s
accident was hit-and-run. The declarations are identical,
22 the question whether the

23 conclusory, and purport to report the thought processes by which the jury collectively

24 arrived at its verdict. Of necessity, the declaring jurors purport to appreciate the individual
well as to report their own. Such evidence is
25 thought processes of their fellow jurors, as
26 not admissible under Evidence Code section 1150.” Id.

that no jury
27 ln Sanchez-Corea, the Court rejected statements by a juror declaration

28 vote was taken on the defendant’s liability, and she (juror) did not agree to liability but

01400695.WPD 10

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
11234567009

that she voted for damages as a compromise because she thought that liability had been

decided because they constituted evidence of a juror’s internal thought process.
Sanchez-Cored v. Bank of America, 38 Cal.3d 892, 909-10. As the Court noted, the juror’s

“declaration dealt only with jurors’ mental processes and reasons for assent or dissent

and was inadmissible for purposes of undermining the verdict.” Id. at 910.

Response to Objection:
This portion of the declaration objected to does not deal with the mental processes
of the jurors. This is an objective recitation of what transpired during the deliberations.

There is no information concerning the jury’s collective thought process.

IO Objection to ‘ﬂ 5, 13-25:

II “The next question the jury was asked to answer was question 5, which stated.

12 The jury engaged in extensive deliberations regarding evidence that defendant’s upper
a deep tissue injury, showed
13 management failed to support plaintiff after she developed
and evidence she should not have been discharged from the
14 a lack of compassion
During the deliberations on question 5, the jury
discussed evidence of whether
15 hospital.
after plaintiff’ s
16 defendant had strictly adhered to its policy entitled “Patient Safety Events”
No juror discussed the evidence for finding that defendant had violated Title 22,
17 injury.
I8 and no other evidence was mentioned while the jury deliberated on question 5....a vote

19 was taken and was 10 votes to 2 votes in favor of the plaintiff. (Rucker Declaration 1|5,

20 13-25.)
21 Grounds for Objection:
See Cal. Evid.
22 Mr. Rucker’s statement lacks foundation and calls for speculation.
Evid. Code Further, Mr. Rucker’s statement is also
23 Code § 402(a)(2); Cal. § 702(a).
evidence
24 inadmissible under California Evidence Code section l 150 because it constitutes
“No evidence is admissible to show the effect of
25 of a juror’s internal thought process.
condition, or event upon a juror either in influencing him to
26 such

Case Info

Judge

Mosbarger, Tamara L Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 04, 2021

Case Filing Date

May 29, 2020

County

Parties

Bolen, Suzanne Plaintiff
Bolen, Suzanne Plaintiff
Enloe Medical Center Defendant
Enloe Medical Center Defendant
Laird, Sean Ryan Attorney for the Plaintiff
Laird, Sean Ryan Attorney for the Plaintiff
Newton, Harold Plaintiff
Newton, Harold Plaintiff
Newton, Patsy Plaintiff
Newton, Patsy Plaintiff
Scharg, Ian A Attorney for the Defendant
Zimmerman, Robert Harry Attorney for the Defendant
Zimmerman, Robert Harry Attorney for the Defendant
Alaina Dickens Attorneys for Defendants
Richard Hogan Attorney
Lisa Oberg Attorneys for Defendants
Michelle Jackson Attorneys for Defendants
Frederic Norris Attorneys for Defendants
Daniel Hoye Attorneys for Defendants
Shawn Heidarzadeh Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Sandgren Attorneys for Defendants
David Amell Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David Rancilio Attorneys for Plaintiffs
William Gunter Attorney
Rebecca Bellow Attorney
Constance Fraenkel Attorney
Marissa Uchimura Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Brent Karren Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Edward Hugo Attorney
Heather Sweeney Attorney
Mark Love Attorney
Shelley Tinkoff Attorney
Shawn McDonald Attorney
Jennifer Lee Attorney
Henry Whitehead Attorney
Thomas Remillard Attorneys for Defendants
Andrea Russi Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David Ongaro Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lisa Perrochet Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert Wright Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Peter Beirne Attorney
Nectaria Belantis Attorney
Samuel Jubelirer Attorneys for Defendants
Sarah Gilson Attorney
William Ruiz Attorney
Michael Steiniger Attorney
Edward Dudensing Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jay Renneisen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Thomas McLaughlin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Joseph Earley Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James Schacht Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Cameron Easterling Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kerry Zeiler Attorney
David Griffith Attorney
Janet Everson Attorney
Susan Tagliere Attorney
David Murray Attorney
Roy Loving Attorney
Michael Read Attorney
Andrew Collins Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Adam Horn Attorney
Richard Wirtz Attorney
Jessica Underwood Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Steve Mikhov Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

Motion-Secondary: Newton, Patsy et al vs. Enloe Medical Center

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties