Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
Filing
32
Objections in support re: MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #3 filed by Plaintiff Courthouse News Service. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Matteo-Boehm, Rachel)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rachel Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
rachel.matteo-boehm@hro.com
David Greene (SBN 160107)
david.greene@hro.com
Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
leila.knox@hro.com
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone: (415) 268-2000
Facsimile: (415) 268-1999
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
12
13
14
Courthouse News Service,
15
Plaintiff,
16
17
18
19
v.
Michael D. Planet, in his official capacity
as Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court.
20
Defendant.
21
22
23
CASE NO. CV11-08083 R (MANx)
OBJECTIONS OF PLAINTIFF
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE TO
THE DECLARATIONS OF JULIE
CAMACHO, CHERYL KANATZAR,
ROBERT SHERMAN AND KAREN
DALTON-KOCH SUBMITTED BY
DEFENDANT IN OPPOSITION TO
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Date:
Nov. 21, 2011
Time:
10:00 am
Courtroom: G-8 (2nd Floor)
Judge: The Hon. Manuel L. Real
24
25
26
27
28
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
Plaintiff Courthouse News Service (“Courthouse News”) hereby submits the
1
2
following evidentiary objections to the declarations of Julie Camacho, Cheryl
3
Kanatzar, Robert Sherman and Karen Dalton-Koch, submitted by Defendant Michael
4
Planet (“Planet” or “Defendant”) in opposition to Courthouse News’ motion for a
5
preliminary injunction.
6
7
8
9
I.
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JULIE CAMACHO
MATERIAL OBJECTED TO
OBJECTION AND GROUNDS
Declaration of Julie Camacho in
Hearsay (FRE 802); Not Subject to Any
10
Support of Defendant’s Opposition to
Exception (FRE 803). This evidence
11
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
comprises, relates, or is based upon an out-
12
Injunction (“Camacho Decl.”), ¶ 4: “I
of-court statement offered to prove the truth
13
conducted my own independent
of the matter asserted and is therefore
14
analysis of the new unlimited general
inadmissible as hearsay. FRE 801, 802. It
15
civil complaints that were filed by the
is not subject to either the business or
16
Ventura Superior Court at the Hall of
public records exceptions because it lacks
17
Justice courthouse between August 8,
any indicia of trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
18
2011, and September 2, 2011. … In
(8)(C). It is untrustworthy because Ms.
19
general, my analysis showed exactly
Camacho made her analysis underlying the
20
the opposite of what CNS claims. The
evidence during the course of litigation,
21
overwhelming bulk (more than 75%) of more than two months after the events in
22
new complaints were received,
23
processed and sent to the Media Bin on subordinate specifically confirming the
24
the same or next day.”
question, and without her or her
physical location of any complaints. See
25
Sullivan v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 623
26
F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2010) (listing bias
27
and untimeliness as factors indicating
28
1
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
untrustworthiness); Olender v. United
2
States, 210 F.2d 795, 801 (9th Cir. 1954)
3
(“reports based upon general investigations
4
and upon information gleaned second hand
5
from random sources must be excluded”).
6
Moreover, no evidence is offered
7
corroborating the underlying record or
8
showing it was made with firsthand
9
knowledge or actually indicated what it
10
purported to reflect; it should therefore be
11
excluded. United States v. Chu Kong Yin,
12
935 F.2d 990, 998-999 (9th Cir. 1991)
13
(public records inadmissible where
14
government failed to show record was
15
prepared by persons with firsthand
16
knowledge).
17
Lacks Foundation (FRE 104(b)); Lacks
18
Personal Knowledge (FRE 602). The
19
evidence is inadmissible because Ms.
20
Camacho lacks any foundation for or
21
personal knowledge of the assertions made,
22
specifically whether she personally
23
witnessed any complaints being placed in
24
the Media Bin. Kemp v. Balboa, 23 F.3d
25
211, 213 (8th Cir. 1994) (error to allow
26
witness to testify to events described in
27
medical records where she had no personal
28
knowledge of said events).
2
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Insufficiently
2
Probative (FRE 403). The evidence is
3
irrelevant and inadmissible because it does
4
not show that the particular complaint was
5
placed in the media bin on a particular date;
6
rather it only shows that those complaints
7
ought to have been placed in the Media
8
Bin. FRE 402. Absent some correlation
9
between the matter asserted and the actual
10
location history of any complaint, the
11
evidence is insufficiently probative to be
12
admissible. FRE 403.
13
Improper Opinion Testimony (FRE 701).
14
The evidence is inadmissible as improper
15
lay opinion testimony because Ms.
16
Camacho offers an opinion not rationally
17
based on her own personal perception, and
18
thus is not helpful to a clear understanding
19
of her testimony or the determination of a
20
fact in issue. FRE 701(a), (b).
21
Unsubstantiated Summary (FRE 1006).
22
The evidence is inadmissible because
23
Defendant has not provided Courthouse
24
News with an opportunity to examine the
25
underlying writings or recordings.
26
27
28
3
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
Camacho Decl., ¶ 7 & Exh. B: “For
Hearsay (FRE 802); Not Subject to Any
2
each new unlimited general civil
Exception (FRE 803). This evidence
3
complaint, I reviewed the CCMS
comprises, relates, or is based upon an out-
4
Records Management—Location
of-court statement offered to prove the truth
5
History screen for the matter. That
of the matter asserted and is therefore
6
screen shows the location of the case
inadmissible as hearsay. FRE 801, 802. It
7
file at any particular point in time
is not subject to either the business or
8
following its processing date. For
public records exceptions because it lacks
9
example, the attached screen shot
any indicia of trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
10
shows the Location History page for
(8)(C). It is untrustworthy because Ms.
11
City National Bank v. Star Marketing
Camacho made her analysis underlying the
12
& Media Inc., one of the unlimited
evidence during the course of litigation,
13
general civil complaints filed on
more than two months after the events in
14
August 8, 2011: [image] A full-page
question, and without her or her
15
copy of this screen shot of the Location subordinate specifically confirming the
16
History page for City National
17
Bank v. Star Marketing & Media Inc. is Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 778; Olender, 210
18
attached hereto as Exhibit B.”
physical location of any complaints. See
F.2d at 801. Moreover, no evidence is
19
offered corroborating the underlying record
20
or showing it was made with firsthand
21
knowledge or actually indicated what it
22
purported to reflect; it should therefore be
23
excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d at 998-
24
999.
25
Lacks Foundation (FRE 104(b)); Lacks
26
Personal Knowledge (FRE 602). The
27
evidence is inadmissible because Ms.
28
Camacho lacks any foundation for or
4
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
personal knowledge of the assertions made,
2
specifically whether she personally
3
witnessed any complaints being placed in
4
the Media Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.
5
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Insufficiently
6
Probative (FRE 403). The evidence is
7
irrelevant and inadmissible because it does
8
not show that the particular complaint in
9
question was placed in the media bin on a
10
particular date; rather it only shows that
11
those complaints ought to have been placed
12
in the Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent some
13
correlation between the matter asserted and
14
the actual location history of any
15
complaint, the evidence is insufficiently
16
probative to be admissible. FRE 403.
17
Furthermore, the evidence purports to link
18
the availability of a particular complaint to
19
whether or not a complaint has been fully
20
processed, but fails to establish why a
21
complaint could not be made available
22
before it is fully processed, and as such, is
23
irrelevant.
24
25
26
27
28
5
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
Camacho Decl., ¶ 8: “The type-written
Hearsay (FRE 802); Not Subject to Any
2
notes at the bottom of the screen shot
Exception (FRE 803). This evidence
3
are notes I inputted as I evaluated the
comprises, relates, or is based upon an out-
4
date on which each case was received,
of-court statement offered to prove the truth
5
processed, and sent to the Media Bin.”
of the matter asserted and is therefore
inadmissible as hearsay. FRE 801, 802. It
6
7
Camacho Decl., ¶ 10: “The entries
is not subject to either the business or
8
below the Case Header box reflect the
public records exceptions because it lacks
9
Location History for that particular file
any indicia of trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
10
on any given date after it has been
(8)(C). It is untrustworthy because Ms.
11
processed and entered into CCMS.”
Camacho made her analysis underlying the
12
evidence during the course of litigation,
13
more than two months after the event in
14
question, and without her or her
15
subordinate specifically confirming the
16
physical location of any complaints. See
17
Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 778; Olender, 210
18
F.2d at 801. Moreover, no evidence is
19
offered corroborating the underlying record
20
or showing it was made with firsthand
21
knowledge or actually indicated what it
22
purported to reflect; it should therefore be
23
excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d at 998-
24
999.
25
Lacks Foundation (FRE 104(b)); Lacks
26
Personal Knowledge (FRE 602). The
27
evidence is inadmissible because Ms.
28
Camacho lacks any foundation for or
6
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
personal knowledge of the assertions made,
2
specifically whether she personally
3
witnessed any complaints being placed in
4
the Media Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213 (8th
5
Cir. 1994) (error to allow witness to testify
6
to events described in medical records
7
where she had no personal knowledge of
8
said events).
9
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Insufficiently
10
Probative (FRE 403). The evidence is
11
irrelevant and inadmissible because it does
12
not show when a particular complaint was
13
placed in the Media Bin; rather it only
14
shows that those complaints ought to have
15
been placed in the Media Bin. FRE 402.
16
Absent some correlation between the
17
matter asserted and the actual location
18
history of any complaint, the evidence is
19
insufficiently probative to be admissible.
20
FRE 403. Furthermore, the evidence
21
purports to link the availability of a
22
particular complaint to whether or not a
23
complaint has been fully processed, but
24
fails to establish why a complaint could not
25
be made available for review before it is
26
fully processed, and as such, is irrelevant.
27
FRE 402.
28
7
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
Camacho Decl., ¶ 11: “As the above
Hearsay (FRE 802); Not Subject to Any
2
screen shot shows, City National Bank
Exception (FRE 803). This evidence
3
v. Star Marketing & Media Inc. was
comprises, relates, or is based upon an out-
4
received and filed on August 8, 2011.
of-court statement offered to prove the truth
5
It was processed and sent to the Media
of the matter asserted and is therefore
6
Bin on August 8, 2011 — the same day inadmissible as hearsay. FRE 801, 802. It
7
it was received. In accordance with our is not subject to either the business or
8
standard practice, the file remained in
public records exceptions because it lacks
9
the Media Bin in the Records
any indicia of trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
10
Department for ten days and was then
(8)(C). It is untrustworthy because Ms.
11
removed from the Media Bin and
Camacho made her analysis underlying the
12
shelved in Records.”
evidence during the course of litigation,
13
more than two months after the event in
14
question, and without her or her
15
subordinate specifically confirming the
16
physical location of any complaints. See
17
Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 778; Olender, 210
18
F.2d at 801. Moreover, no evidence is
19
offered corroborating the underlying record
20
or showing it was made with firsthand
21
knowledge or actually indicated what it
22
purported to reflect; it should therefore be
23
excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d at 998-
24
999.
25
Lacks Foundation (FRE 104(b)); Lacks
26
Personal Knowledge (FRE 602). The
27
evidence is inadmissible because Ms.
28
Camacho lacks any foundation for or
8
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
personal knowledge of the assertions made,
2
specifically whether she personally
3
witnessed any complaints being placed in
4
the Media Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.
5
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Insufficiently
6
Probative (FRE 403). The evidence is
7
irrelevant and inadmissible because it does
8
not show that the particular complaint in
9
question was placed in the media bin on a
10
particular date; rather it only shows that
11
those complaints ought to have been placed
12
in the Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent some
13
correlation between the matter asserted and
14
the actual location history of any
15
complaint, the evidence is insufficiently
16
probative to be admissible. FRE 403.
17
Furthermore, the evidence purports to link
18
the availability of a particular complaint to
19
whether or not a complaint has been fully
20
processed, but fails to establish why a
21
complaint could not be made available
22
before it is fully processed, and as such, is
23
irrelevant. FRE 402.
24
25
26
27
28
9
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
Camacho Decl., ¶ 12 & Exh. C: “For
Hearsay (FRE 802); Not Subject to Any
2
each case that was filed but not sent to
Exception (FRE 803). This evidence
3
the Media Bin on the same day, I
comprises, relates, or is based upon an out-
4
reviewed the Case History screen in
of-court statement offered to prove the truth
5
CCMS to determine when the file was
of the matter asserted and is therefore
6
processed. For example, the following
inadmissible as hearsay. FRE 801, 802. It
7
screen shot shows the Location History is not subject to either the business or
8
page for Power Gomez v. LaCouture, a
public records exceptions because it lacks
9
case that was received and deemed
any indicia of trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
10
filed on August 8, 2011, but was not
(8)(C). It is untrustworthy because Ms.
11
sent to the Media Bin until August 9,
Camacho made her analysis underlying the
12
2011: [image] A full-page copy of this
evidence during the course of litigation,
13
screen shot of the Location History
more than two months after the event in
14
page for Power Gomez v. LaCouture is
question, and without her or her
15
attached hereto as Exhibit C.”
subordinate specifically confirming the
16
physical location of any complaints. See
17
Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 778; Olender, 210
18
F.2d at 801. Moreover, no evidence is
19
offered corroborating the underlying record
20
or showing it was made with firsthand
21
knowledge or actually indicated what it
22
purported to reflect; it should therefore be
23
excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d at 998-
24
999.
25
Lacks Foundation (FRE 104(b)); Lacks
26
Personal Knowledge (FRE 602). The
27
evidence is inadmissible because Ms.
28
Camacho lacks any foundation for or
10
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
personal knowledge of the assertions made,
2
specifically whether she personally
3
witnessed any complaints being placed in
4
the Media Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.
5
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Insufficiently
6
Probative (FRE 403). The evidence is
7
irrelevant and inadmissible because it does
8
not show that the particular complaint in
9
question was placed in the media bin on a
10
particular date; rather it only shows that
11
those complaints ought to have been placed
12
in the Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent some
13
correlation between the matter asserted and
14
the actual location history of any
15
complaint, the evidence is insufficiently
16
probative to be admissible. FRE 403.
17
Furthermore, the evidence purports to link
18
the availability of a particular complaint to
19
whether or not a complaint has been fully
20
processed, but fails to establish why a
21
complaint could not be made available
22
before it is fully processed, and as such, is
23
irrelevant. FRE 402.
24
Camacho Decl., ¶ 13 & Exh. D: “The
Hearsay (FRE 802); Not Subject to Any
25
Case History screen in the system
Exception (FRE 803). This evidence
26
shows even more detail, including each comprises, relates, or is based upon an out-
27
document that was processed along
of-court statement offered to prove the truth
28
11
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
with the new complaint. Thus,
of the matter asserted and is therefore
2
for Power Gomez v. LaCouture, a
inadmissible as hearsay. FRE 801, 802. It
3
complaint, declaration for court
is not subject to either the business or
4
assignment, and civil case cover sheet
public records exceptions because it lacks
5
were processed as part of the initial
any indicia of trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
6
filing of the complaint. Because the
(8)(C). It is untrustworthy because Ms.
7
complaint was received on August 8,
Camacho made her analysis underlying the
8
all documents have a filed date of
evidence during the course of litigation,
9
August 8 as well. However, by placing more than two months after the event in
10
my cursor over the person icon on the
question, and without her or her
11
screen I am able to determine that the
subordinate specifically confirming the
12
documents were backdated. A small
physical location of any complaints. See
13
box opens up to show the actual date
Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 778; Olender, 210
14
and time the documents were
F.2d at 801. Moreover, no evidence is
15
processed, not just the date they were
offered corroborating the underlying record
16
deemed filed: [image] A full-page copy or showing it was made with firsthand
17
of this screen shot for Power Gomez v.
18
LaCouture is attached hereto as Exhibit purported to reflect; it should therefore be
19
D.”
knowledge or actually indicated what it
excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d at 998999.
20
21
Camacho Decl., ¶ 14: “All the
Lacks Foundation (FRE 104(b)); Lacks
22
documents for the Power Gomez v.
Personal Knowledge (FRE 602). The
23
LaCouture file were processed on
evidence is inadmissible because Ms.
24
August 9, 2011, at 8:16 a.m.—
Camacho lacks any foundation for or
25
essentially the first thing the next
personal knowledge of the assertions made,
26
morning after it was received. And as
specifically whether she personally
27
the prior screen shot shows, the file
witnessed this particular complaint being
28
was sent to the Media Bin that same
placed in the Media Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at
12
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
day.”
213.
2
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Insufficiently
3
Probative (FRE 403). The evidence is
4
irrelevant and inadmissible because it does
5
not show that the particular complaint cited
6
was placed in the media bin on a particular
7
date; rather it only shows that those
8
complaints ought to have been placed in the
9
Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent some
10
correlation between the matter asserted and
11
the actual location history of any
12
complaint, the evidence is insufficiently
13
probative to be admissible. FRE 403.
14
Furthermore, the evidence purports to link
15
the availability of a particular complaint to
16
whether or not a complaint has been fully
17
processed, but fails to establish why a
18
complaint could not be made available
19
before it is fully processed, and as such, is
20
irrelevant. FRE 402.
21
Camacho Decl., ¶¶ 15-21, relating Ms.
Hearsay (FRE 802); Not Subject to Any
22
Camacho’s analysis of all new
Exception (FRE 803). This evidence
23
unlimited general civil complaints filed comprises, relates, or is based upon an out-
24
on all court days between August 8,
of-court statement offered to prove the truth
25
2011, and September 2, 2011:
of the matter asserted and is therefore
26
“15. I conducted an identical analysis
inadmissible as hearsay. FRE 801, 802. It
27
for all new unlimited general civil
is not subject to either the business or
28
13
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
complaints filed on all court days
public records exceptions because it lacks
2
between August 8, 2011, and
any indicia of trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
3
September 2, 2011. My analysis
(8)(C). It is untrustworthy because Ms.
4
revealed that 147 new unlimited
Camacho made her analysis underlying the
5
general civil complaints were filed by
evidence during the course of litigation,
6
Ventura Superior Court during that
more than two months after the events in
7
time.
question, and without her or her
8
16. Of those 147 new unlimited
subordinate specifically confirming the
9
general civil complaints, 47 of them
physical location of any complaints. See
10
were
Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 778; Olender, 210
11
received, processed and placed in the
F.2d at 801. Moreover, no evidence is
12
Media Bin all on the same day.
offered corroborating the underlying record
13
17. Fifty-four (54) of them were
or showing it was made with firsthand
14
received on one day and processed and
knowledge or actually indicated what it
15
placed in the Media Bin on the next
purported to reflect; it should therefore be
16
day.
excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d at 998-
17
18. Another 18 of them were
999.
18
processed and placed in the Media Bin
Lacks Foundation (FRE 104(b)); Lacks
19
within two days of receipt.
Personal Knowledge (FRE 602). The
20
19. Seventeen (17) of the 147 new
evidence is inadmissible because Ms.
21
unlimited general civil complaints
Camacho lacks any foundation for or
22
needed to be directed to a judicial
personal knowledge of the assertions made,
23
officer immediately, or were
specifically whether she personally
24
transferred in from a Superior Court in
witnessed any complaints being placed in
25
another county.
the Media Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.
26
20. Seven (7) of them did not get
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Insufficiently
27
placed in the Media Bin due to an
Probative (FRE 403). The evidence is
28
inadvertent clerical error.
irrelevant and inadmissible because it does
14
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
21. Of the remaining four (4) files,
not show when any complaints were placed
2
three filings were backdated five (5)
in the Media Bin; rather it only shows that
3
days and one filing was backdated 10
those complaints ought to have been placed
4
days. These files had delays that were
in the Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent some
5
due either to being received and
correlation between the matter asserted and
6
couriered from the Simi Valley branch, the actual location history of any
7
or from an anomaly in processing that
complaint, the evidence is insufficiently
8
cannot be tracked through CCMS or
probative to be admissible. FRE 403.
9
independently recalled by the CPAs
Furthermore, the evidence purports to link
10
who processed the filings. Given the
the availability of a particular complaint to
11
hundreds of documents our CPAs must
whether or not a complaint has been fully
12
process by hand each day, this is not
processed, but fails to establish why a
13
surprising. Those remaining files,
complaint could not be made available
14
however, did eventually make it to the
before it is fully processed, and as such, is
15
Media Bin.”
irrelevant. FRE 402. Furthermore, the
16
evidence purports to link the availability of
17
a particular complaint to whether or not a
18
complaint has been fully processed, but
19
fails to establish why a complaint could not
20
be made available before it is fully
21
processed, and as such, is irrelevant. FRE
22
402.
23
Unsubstantiated Summary (FRE 1006).
24
The evidence is inadmissible because
25
Defendant has not provided Plaintiff with
26
an opportunity to examine the underlying
27
writings or recordings.
28
15
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
Hearsay (FRE 802); Not Subject to Any
1
Camacho Decl., ¶ 22: “I further
2
understand that CNS has complained in Exception (FRE 803). This evidence
3
the past about four specific case files
comprises, relates, or is based upon an out-
4
and alleged delays of access to each
of-court statement offered to prove the truth
5
ranging from eight to 13 days. I have
of the matter asserted and is therefore
6
researched those files through the
inadmissible as hearsay. FRE 801, 802. It
7
information available in CCMS and
is not subject to either the business or
8
have determined the following:
public records exceptions because it lacks
9
(a) Estrada v. Rubio’s Restaurant, Inc., any indicia of trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
10
Case No. 56-2010-00387332: This case (8)(C). It is untrustworthy because Ms.
11
was received, processed into CCMS,
Camacho made her analysis underlying the
12
and deemed filed all on December 20,
evidence during the course of litigation,
13
2010, and then sent to the Media Bin
months after the events in question, and
14
that same day.
without her or her subordinate specifically
15
(b) Berber v. Holiday Retirement, Case
confirming the physical location of any
16
No. 56-2010-00387945: This case was
complaints. See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 778;
17
received and deemed filed on
Olender, 210 F.2d at 801. Moreover, no
18
December 28, 2010, and was processed evidence is offered corroborating the
19
into CCMS on January 4, 2011. The
20
file was sent to the Media Bin the same with firsthand knowledge or actually
21
day it was processed. The delay in
indicated what it purported to reflect; it
22
processing likely was due to the
should therefore be excluded. Chu Kong
23
intervening New Year’s Holiday.
Yin, 935 F.2d at 998-999.
24
(c) Harrison v. Rite Aide Corp., Case
Lacks Foundation (FRE 104(b)); Lacks
25
No. 56-2010-00387942: This case was
Personal Knowledge (FRE 602). The
26
received and deemed filed on
evidence is inadmissible because Ms.
27
December 28, 2010, and was processed Camacho lacks any foundation for or
28
into CCMS on January 4, 2011. The
underlying record or showing it was made
personal knowledge of the assertions made,
16
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
file was sent to the Media Bin the same specifically whether she personally
2
day it was processed. The delay in
witnessed any complaints being placed in
3
processing likely was due to the
the Media Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.
4
intervening New Year’s Holiday.
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Insufficiently
5
(d) Latham v. Bumbarger, Case No.
Probative (FRE 403). The evidence is
6
56-2011-00389425: This case was
irrelevant and inadmissible because it does
7
received, processed and deemed filed
not show that any of the cited complaints
8
on January 12, 2011, and was
were actually placed in the Media Bin on
9
immediately delivered to a judicial
the date that Ms. Camacho claims they
10
officer for review of a fee waiver that
were placed in the media bin; rather it only
11
was presented with the complaint.”
shows that those complaints ought to have
12
been placed in the Media Bin. FRE 402.
13
Absent some correlation between the
14
matter asserted and the actual location
15
history of any complaint, the evidence is
16
insufficiently probative to be admissible.
17
FRE 403.
18
Unsubstantiated Summary (FRE 1006).
19
The evidence is inadmissible because
20
Defendant has not provided Plaintiff with
21
an opportunity to examine the underlying
22
writings or recordings.
23
Camacho Decl., ¶ 23: “None of these
Hearsay (FRE 802); Not Subject to Any
24
cases reflect the type of delay to access
Exception (FRE 803). This evidence
25
that CNS claims.”
comprises, relates, or is based upon an out-
26
of-court statement offered to prove the truth
27
of the matter asserted and is therefore
28
17
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
inadmissible as hearsay. FRE 801, 802. It
2
is not subject to either the business or
3
public records exceptions because it lacks
4
any indicia of trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
5
(8)(C). It is untrustworthy because Ms.
6
Camacho made her analysis underlying the
7
evidence during the course of litigation,
8
months after the event in question, and
9
without her or her subordinate specifically
10
confirming the physical location of any
11
complaints. See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 778;
12
Olender, 210 F.2d at 801. Moreover, no
13
evidence is offered corroborating the
14
underlying record or showing it was made
15
with firsthand knowledge or actually
16
indicated what it purported to reflect; it
17
should therefore be excluded. Chu Kong
18
Yin, 935 F.2d at 998-999.
19
Lacks Foundation (FRE 104(b)); Lacks
20
Personal Knowledge (FRE 602). The
21
evidence is inadmissible because Ms.
22
Camacho lacks any foundation for or
23
personal knowledge of the assertions made,
24
specifically whether she personally
25
witnessed any complaints being placed in
26
the Media Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.
27
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Insufficiently
28
Probative (FRE 403). The evidence is
18
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
irrelevant and inadmissible because it does
2
not show when any complaints were placed
3
in the Media Bin; rather it purports only to
4
show that those complaints ought to have
5
been placed in the Media Bin. FRE 402.
6
Absent some correlation between the
7
matter asserted and the actual location
8
history of any complaint, the evidence is
9
insufficiently probative to be admissible.
10
FRE 403.
11
Improper Opinion Testimony (FRE 701).
12
The evidence is inadmissible as improper
13
lay opinion testimony because Ms.
14
Camacho offers an opinion not rationally
15
based on her own personal perception, and
16
thus is not helpful to a clear understanding
17
of her testimony or the determination of a
18
fact in issue. FRE 701(a), (b).
19
Unsubstantiated Summary (FRE 1006).
20
The evidence is inadmissible because
21
Defendant has not provided Plaintiff with
22
an opportunity to examine the underlying
23
writings or recordings.
24
25
26
27
28
19
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
2
II.
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF CHERYL KANATZAR
MATERIAL OBJECTED TO
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
3
Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar
Irrelevant (FRE 402). The evidence is
4
(“Kanatzar Decl.”), ¶ 5: “[T]he CPAs in
inadmissible as irrelevant to the legal
5
the civil clerks office are responsible for
issues posed by Courthouse News Service
6
receiving, filing and processing in excess in connection with its preliminary
7
of 151,000 separate filings each year:
injunction motion. Courthouse News
8
2008 Civil Filings – 144,184
does not dispute that the staff at Ventura
9
2009 Civil Filings – 151,281
Superior processes large amounts of court
10
2010 Civil Filings – 151,203”
records, just as other courts do.
Kanatzar Decl., ¶¶ 6-11, 29, 32 & Exhs.
Irrelevant (FRE 402). The evidence is
A, B: Ms. Kanatzar reviews the Ventura
inadmissible as irrelevant to the legal
Superior Court’s office staffing and
issues posed by Courthouse News Service
caseload generally, and also cites the
in connection with its preliminary
court’s current budget difficulties.
injunction motion. Courthouse News
11
12
13
14
15
16
does not dispute that Ventura Superior is
17
facing serious staffing and budget
18
difficulties, and Courthouse News is not
19
asking Defendant or his staff to process
20
records any faster or spend more money
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
to hire additional staff.
Kanatzar Decl., ¶ 12 & Exh. C: “First,
Irrelevant (FRE 402). The evidence is
we reduced the public business hours for
inadmissible as irrelevant to the legal
the clerk’s office effective July 1, 2009.
issues posed by Courthouse News Service
As can be seen from this excerpt from
in connection with its preliminary
the July 1, 2009 memorandum issued to
injunction motion. Courthouse News
all staff in the clerk’s office, which I
does not dispute that Ventura Superior is
28
20
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
approved, the public and telephone hours facing serious staffing and budget
2
were reduced so that the doors to the
difficulties, and Courthouse News is not
3
clerk’s office would be closed at 4:00
asking Defendant or his staff to process
4
p.m., rather than 5:00 p.m.”
records any faster or spend more money
to hire additional staff.
5
6
Kanatzar Decl., ¶¶ 13-17: Ms. Kanatzar
Irrelevant (FRE 402). The evidence is
7
reviews the various methods by which
inadmissible as irrelevant to the legal
8
litigants can file new complaints at
issues posed by Courthouse News Service
9
Ventura Superior.
in connection with its preliminary
injunction motion.
10
11
12
13
Kanatzar Decl., ¶ 18: “As a practical
Irrelevant (FRE 402). The evidence is
14
matter, CNS’s reporter is the only
inadmissible as irrelevant to the legal
15
‘reporter’ who asks to see our new case
issues posed by Courthouse News Service
16
files. The Superior Court only
in connection with its preliminary
17
infrequently receives requests from other injunction motion.
18
reporters for access to case files or new
19
complaints. As is the case with CNS, we
20
grant other reporters the same access we
21
provide to members of the general
22
public.”
23
Kanatzar Decl., ¶¶ 30-34: Ms. Kanatzar
Irrelevant (FRE 402). The evidence is
24
offers various reasons why she believes
inadmissible as irrelevant to the legal
25
it is “not possible” to provide same-day
issues posed by Courthouse News Service
26
access to newly-filed unlimited
in connection with its preliminary
27
complaints
injunction motion. The assertions set
28
21
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
forth in ¶¶ 30-34 do not address why it is
2
“not possible” to provide same-day access
3
to new civil unlimited complaints.
4
Rather, they offer Ms. Kanatzar’s reasons
5
for why the processing of new civil
6
unlimited complaints may be delayed.
7
8
III.
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROBERT SHERMAN
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MATERIAL OBJECTED TO
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
Declaration of Robert Sherman in
Irrelevant (FRE 402). The evidence is
Support of Defendant’s Opposition to
inadmissible as irrelevant to the legal
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
issues posed by Courthouse News Service
Injunction (“Sherman Decl.”), ¶¶ 2-15 & in connection with its preliminary
Exhs. A and B: Mr. Sherman
injunction motion. Courthouse News
summarizes the shortfalls of revenue
does not dispute that Ventura Superior is
incumbent on Ventura Superior.
facing serious budget difficulties, and
Courthouse News is not asking Defendant
18
or his staff to process records any faster
19
or spend more money to hire additional
20
staff.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
IV.
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF KAREN DALTON-KOCH
2
MATERIAL OBJECTED TO
3
Declaration of Karen Dalton-Koch in
Irrelevant (FRE 402); Lacks
4
Support of Defendant’s Opposition to
Foundation (FRE 104(b)).
5
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Ms. Dalton-Koch’s exhibit, offered to
6
Injunction, Exhibit A: (document entitled dispute Courthouse News’ assertion that
7
“Score: Report Card Detail”)
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
there is a tradition of timely access to new
8
complaints, is irrelevant that proposition.
9
FRE 401. The document was produced to
10
document the recent deterioration of
11
access at some courts; not as an historical
12
overview of access.
13
14
15
Date: November 7, 2011
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
RACHEL MATTEO-BOEHM
DAVID GREENE
LEILA KNOX
16
17
18
By:
19
20
/s/ Rachel Matteo-Boehm
Rachel Matteo-Boehm
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
COURTHOUSE NEWS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
#75589 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?