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)
[e-mail]
David Greene (SBN 160107)
[e-mail]
Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
[e-mail]
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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)