Currently before the Court is the motion by plaintiff Kenneth Rosenberg (“Plaintiff”) to compel defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW”) to provide further responses to requests for production of documents, set four (“RPD”).
Discovery Dispute
Plaintiff moves to compel BMW to provide further responses to RPD Nos. 1-10.
I. Request for Judicial Notice
In connection with his reply papers, Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of a supplemental brief filed by BMW in a federal case “pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201.” (Reply RJN, p. 1:6.)
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice suffers from multiple defects. First, the request is made pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. California courts, including this Court, are not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence; they follow California’s Evidence Code. (Evid. Code, § 300; Roberti v. Andy’s Termite & Pest Control, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 893, 897.) Plaintiff fails to identify any California authorit
Hearing Date
February 13, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Currently before the Court is the motion by plaintiff Kenneth Rosenberg (“Plaintiff”) to compel defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW”) to provide further responses to requests for production of documents, set four (“RPD”).
Discovery Dispute
Plaintiff moves to compel BMW to provide further responses to RPD Nos. 1-10.
I. Request for Judicial Notice
In connection with his reply papers, Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of a supplemental brief filed by BMW in a federal case “pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201.” (Reply RJN, p. 1:6.)
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice suffers from multiple defects. First, the request is made pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. California courts, including this Court, are not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence; they follow California’s Evidence Code. (Evid. Code, § 300; Roberti v. Andy’s Termite & Pest Control, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 893, 897.) Plaintiff fails to identify any California authorit