Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 35

OPPOSITION to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #3 Defendant's Responses to Courthouse News Service's Objections to the Declarations of J. Camacho, C. Kanatzar, R. Sherman, and K. Dalton-Koch Submitted by Defendant in Opposition to Courthouse News' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant Michael Planet. (Reilley, Erica)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Robert A. Naeve (State Bar No. 106095)
[e-mail]
Erica L. Reilley (State Bar No. 211615)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612.4408
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
MICHAEL PLANET, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS COURT EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/CLERK OF THE VENTURA
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

v.
MICHAEL PLANET, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COURT
EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF
THE VENTURA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT,
Defendant.

Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)
Assigned for all purposes to
Hon. Manuel L. Real
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO
COURTHOUSE NEWS
SERVICE’S OBJECTIONS TO
THE DECLARATIONS OF
JULIE CAMACHO, CHERYL
KANATZAR, ROBERT
SHERMAN, AND KAREN
DALTON-KOCH SUBMITTED
BY DEFENDANT IN
OPPOSITION TO
COURTHOUSE NEWS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Date:
November 21, 2011
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 8

24
25
26
27
28
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant Michael D. Planet, in his official capacity as Executive Officer
and Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura (“Ventura
Superior Court”) herby responds to plaintiff Courthouse News Service’s (“CNS”)
objections to the declarations of Julie Camacho, Cheryl Kanatzar, Robert Sherman,
and Karen Dalton-Koch, submitted by Ventura Superior Court in support of its
opposition to CNS’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
I. VENTURA SUPERIOR COURT’S RESPONSE TO CNS’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JULIE CAMACHO
Ventura Superior Court’s
Evidence
CNS’s Objections
Response
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
Declaration of Hearsay (FRE 802); Not
HEARSAY:
Julie Camacho Subject to Any Exception
The evidence objected to does not
in Support of
(FRE 803). This evidence
reflect an out-of-court statement;
comprises, relates, or is based
Defendant’s
rather, Ms. Camacho is describing
upon an out-of-court
Opposition to
events based on her own personal
statement offered to prove
Plaintiff’s
perceptions—that is, the actions
the truth of the matter
Motion for
she took and the results she
asserted and is therefore
Preliminary
obtained upon conducting her
inadmissible as hearsay. FRE
Injunction
independent review and analysis of
801, 802. It is not subject to
(“Camacho
the unlimited general civil
Decl.”), ¶ 4: “I either the business or public
complaints that were filed with
records exceptions because it
conducted my
Ventura Superior Court between
lacks any indicia of
own
August 8, 2011, and September 2,
trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),
independent
2011. Thus, it is not hearsay.
analysis of the (8)(C). It is untrustworthy
(FRE 802.)
new unlimited because Ms. Camacho made
general civil

her analysis underlying the

complaints that

evidence during the course of

-2-

Because Ms. Camacho’s
statements are (i) rationally based
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

were filed by

litigation, more than two

upon her own personal perception

the Ventura

months after the events in

(and based upon records

Superior Court

question, and without her or

admissible under several hearsay

at the Hall of

her subordinate specifically

exceptions, discussed infra),

Justice

confirming the physical

(ii) helpful to understand her

courthouse

location of any complaints.

testimony, and (iii) not based on

between August See Sullivan v. Dollar Tree

specialized knowledge, they are

8, 2011, and

Stores, Inc., 623 F.3d 770,

proper opinion testimony under

September 2,

778 (9th Cir. 2010) (listing

FRE 701.

2011. … In

bias and untimeliness as

general, my

factors indicating

Ms. Camacho has also established

analysis

untrustworthiness); Olender

the foundational facts and requisite

showed exactly

v. United States, 210 F.2d

personal knowledge to declare to

the opposite of

795, 801 (9th Cir. 1954)

the matters stated in her

what CNS

(“reports based upon general declaration. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 1

claims. The

investigations and upon

(“I am responsible for overseeing

overwhelming

information gleaned second

the operations . . . of the Ventura

bulk (more than hand from random sources

Superior Court and the

75%) of new

must be excluded”).

[CPAs] . . . . I have personal

complaints

Moreover, no evidence is

knowledge of the facts stated in

were received,

offered corroborating the

this Declaration . . . .”).) (FRE

processed and

underlying record or showing 104(b); 602.)

sent to the

it was made with firsthand

Media Bin on

knowledge or actually

the same or

THE RECORDS FALL
WITHIN EXCEPTIONS TO
indicated what it purported to HEARSAY:

next day.”

reflect; it should therefore be Public Records (FRE 803(A))
excluded. United States v.

-3-

The Ventura Superior Court
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d 990, records to which Ms. Camacho
998-999 (9th Cir. 1991)

refers—information concerning

(public records inadmissible

complaints filed with the court and

where government failed to

maintained in the Court Case

show record was prepared by Management System (“CCMS)—
persons with firsthand

are a “data compilation[], in any

knowledge).

form” of a public agency that sets

Lacks Foundation (FRE

forth “the activities of the office or

104(b)); Lacks Personal

agency . . . .” As a result, they are

Knowledge (FRE 602). The

admissible as a public record.

evidence is inadmissible

(See FRE 803(8)(A); see also

because Ms. Camacho lacks

United States v. Loera, 923 F.2d

any foundation for or

725, 730 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming

personal knowledge of the

trial court’s admission of traffic

assertions made, specifically court docket entries as falling
whether she personally

within scope of public records

witnessed any complaints

exception); G. Weissenberger,

being placed in the Media

Weissenberger’s Fed. Evid.,

Bin. Kemp v. Balboa, 23 F.3d § 803.42 (discussing public
211, 213 (8th Cir. 1994)

records exception and providing

(error to allow witness to

“[e]xamples of evidence

testify to events described in admissible as proof of the
medical records where she

activities of official agencies,”

had no personal knowledge

including “docket and journal

of said events).

entries of courts”). The CCMS

Irrelevant (FRE 402);

records “are uncomplicated and

Insufficiently Probative (FRE concern factual matters involving

-4-

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

403). The evidence is

the internal function of the

irrelevant and inadmissible

particular agency, they are likely

because it does not show that to be accurate and thus they
the particular complaint was

qualify for admission [as a public

placed in the media bin on a

record].” Weissenberger’s Fed.

particular date; rather it only Evid., § 803.42.)
shows that those complaints
ought to have been placed in As the party opposing the
the Media Bin. FRE 402.

introduction of the public record,

Absent some correlation

CNS “bears the burden of coming

between the matter asserted

forward with enough negative

and the actual location

factors to persuade a court that a

history of any complaint, the report should not be admitted.”
evidence is insufficiently

Johnson v. City of Pleasanton, 982

probative to be admissible.

F.2d 350, 352-53 (9th Cir. 1992).

FRE 403.

Because the CCMS records fall

Improper Opinion Testimony within the public records
(FRE 701). The evidence is

exception, the Court “is entitled to

inadmissible as improper lay presume that the public records are
opinion testimony because

trustworthy.” Id. The public

Ms. Camacho offers an

records exception “is premised on

opinion not rationally based

the assumption that public officials

on her own personal

perform their duties properly

perception, and thus is not

without motive or interest other

helpful to a clear

than to submit accurate and fair

understanding of her

reports.” Id. CNS identified two

testimony or the

“factors” to substantiate its

-5-

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

determination of a fact in

objection, but they are insufficient

issue. FRE 701(a), (b).

to overcome the presumption that

Unsubstantiated Summary

the CCMS records are trustworthy.

(FRE 1006). The evidence is First, the date upon which Ms.
inadmissible because

Camacho subsequently reviewed

Defendant has not provided

the underlying CCMS records is

Courthouse News with an

irrelevant to the trustworthiness of

opportunity to examine the

the records themselves. Second,

underlying writings or

Ms. Camacho is not required to

recordings.

have personally observed each
event or activity reported into

12

CCMS for the public records

13

exception to apply. To so require

14

would undermine the purposes for

15

the exception—for example, it

16

would be “burdensome and

17

inconvenient to call public

18

officials to appear in the myriad of

19

cases in which their testimony

20

might be required,” Olender v.

21

United States, 210 F.2d 795, 801

22

(1954)—and the appropriate

23

assumption underlying the

24

exception that public officials

25

perform their duties properly.

26

Johnson v. City of Pleasanton, 982

27

F.2d 350, 352-53 (9th Cir. 1992).

28
-6-

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

Moreover, it would improperly

2

shift the burden to the proponent

3

of the record. Cf. id. at 352-53.

4
5

The cases CNS cites in support of

6

its objection are inapposite, either

7

because they are based upon an

8

exception other than FRE

9

803(6)(A), or are factually

10

distinguishable. See Sullivan v.

11

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 623 F.3d

12

770, 778 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding

13

district court properly refused to

14

consider a Department of Labor

15

report under Rule 803(8)(C)

16

(records setting forth factual

17

findings from an investigation

18

made pursuant to authority granted

19

by law) as “not trustworthy,”

20

because the report, offered by a

21

plaintiff in a civil case, was

22

missing exhibits and appeared to

23

be a draft); Olender, 210 F.2d at

24

801 (ruling private individuals’

25

statements made to a public entity

26

and contained in the entity’s

27

record were inadmissible hearsay);

28
-7-

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

United States v. Chu Kong Yin,

2

935 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1991)

3

(ruling that “Certificates of Trial”

4

from Hong Kong that were created

5

between seven and twenty years

6

after the incidents in question took

7

place and at the request of the INS

8

lacked trustworthiness under the

9

circumstances and thus were

10

inadmissible as a public record).

11

In comparison, Ventura Superior

12

Court’s records set forth “the

13

activities of the office or agency”

14

(FRE 803(8)(A)); the CPAs

15

generate the information contained

16

within the records; and the

17

record’s creation occurs either at

18

or near the time of the receipt of

19

the information. (See Camacho

20

Decl. ¶ 13-14, 22; see also

21

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar

22

(“Kanatzar Decl.”), ¶ 14.) Thus,

23

CNS’s inapposite cases do not

24

negate the conclusion that Ventura

25

Superior Court’s CCMS records

26

are public records and, as such,

27

admissible.

28
-8-

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

Records of a Regularly
Conducted Activity (FRE
803(6)).

2
3

The CCMS records, which are

4

created and kept in the regular

5

course of Ventura Superior

6

Court’s business, are also

7

admissible under the business

8

records exception to the hearsay

9

rule. (FRE 803(6).) As

10

established in the Camacho

11

Declaration, and further explained

12

in the Kanatzar Declaration, Ms.

13

Camacho oversees the Court

14

Processing Assistants (the

15

“CPAs”), who are responsible for

16

receiving, filing, and processing in

17

excess of 151,000 separate filings

18

each year in the CCMS.

19

(Camacho Decl. ¶ 1; Kanatzar

20

Decl. ¶ 5, 6.) The CPAs are

21

responsible for fully opening new

22

files and are required to enter the

23

file’s information into the CCMS

24

before a file number can be

25

generated. (See Kanatzar Decl.

26

¶ 14.) As such, the CCMS records

27

are created in the regular course of

28
-9-

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

the CPAs’ regular business

2

activities, and it is a regular

3

practice of Ventura Superior Court

4

to make such CCMS records.

5
6

Summaries (FRE 1006).

7

Ms. Camacho’s testimony

8

summarizes the contents of 147

9

CCMS case files and

10

accompanying documents—a

11

voluminous set of records that

12

could not conveniently be

13

examined in court and are

14

therefore admissible as a

15

summary. (FRE 1006.) To the

16

extent CNS desires to review the

17

underlying documents, the

18

originals or duplicates will be

19

made available for examination or

20

copying at a reasonable time and

21

place.

22
23
24

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).

25

Ms. Camacho’s declaration

26

establishes that Ventura Superior

27

Court makes newly filed civil

28

complaints publicly available
- 10 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

within a reasonable time from the

2

complaint’s receipt. Relevant

3

evidence is “evidence having any

4

tendency to make the existence of

5

any fact” of consequence to the

6

case more or less probable than it

7

would be without the evidence.

8

(FRE 401, emphasis added).

9
10

Ms. Camacho’s statements are

11

relevant because they rebut the

12

type of delay to access of public

13

records that CNS claims.

14

Moreover, CNS claims the alleged

15

delays reflect the official policy of

16

the clerk’s office and thus, Mr.

17

Planet is acting under the color of

18

state law within the meaning of 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. ¶ 8.) But

20

the fact that Ventura Superior

21

Court’s records show that its

22

policy (and practice) is to place the

23

records in the Media Bin on the

24

dates reflected negates CNS’s

25

section 1983 claim. See Polk

26

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,

27

326, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d

28
- 11 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

509 (1981) (holding official policy

2

must be “the moving force of the

3

constitutional violation” in order

4

to establish the liability under

5

section 1983); see also Rizzo v.

6

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-77, 96

7

S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976)

8

(general allegation of

9

administrative negligence fails to

10

state a constitutional claim

11

cognizable under section 1983).

12
13

Finally, CNS’s claim that the

14

evidence is irrelevant because it

15

“does not show that the particular

16

complaint was placed in the media

17

bin on a particular date” lacks

18

merit. See United States v. Curtin,

19

489 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir. 2007)

20

(“To be ‘relevant,’ evidence need

21

not be conclusive proof of a fact

22

sought to be proved, or even

23

strong evidence of the same. All

24

that is required is a ‘tendency’ to

25

establish the fact at issue.”)

26

CNS is claiming a constitutional

27

right to same-day access to newly

28
- 12 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

filed complaints, and this evidence

2

is directly relevant to that claim.

3

CNS is not claiming a

4

constitutional right to access a

5

complaint prior to the time

6

Ventura Superior Court has fully

7

processed the complaint. Even if

8

it were, however, ample other

9

evidence demonstrates why a

10

complaint cannot be made

11

available prior to its being fully

12

processed. (See Kanatzar Decl.

13

¶¶ 32-34.)

14
15

18

THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
OUTWEIGHED BY DANGER
OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE (FRE
403).

19

CNS misstates the rule when it

20

claims Ms. Camacho’s declaration

21

is “insufficiently probative” to be

22

admissible. FRE 403 provides that

23

“evidence may be excluded if its

24

probative value is substantially

25

outweighed by the danger of unfair

26

prejudice, confusion of the issues,

27

or misleading the jury, or by

28

considerations of undue delay,

16
17

- 13 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

waste of time, or needless

2

presentation of cumulative

3

evidence.” Here, CNS offers no

4

facts establishing any of these

5

factors that would outweigh the

6

probative value of Ms. Camacho’s

7

declaration. The evidence is

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Camacho Decl.

Hearsay (FRE 802); Not

¶ 7 & Ex. B:

Subject to Any Exception

“For each new

(FRE 803). This evidence

unlimited

comprises, relates, or is based

general civil

upon an out-of- court

complaint, I

statement offered to prove

reviewed the

the truth of the matter

admissible.
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
HEARSAY:
The evidence objected to does not
reflect an out-of-court statement;
rather, Ms. Camacho is describing
events based upon her own
personal perceptions. It is not
hearsay.

CCMS Records asserted and is therefore
Management—

inadmissible as hearsay. FRE

Location

801, 802. It is not subject to

History screen

either the business or public

for the matter.

records exceptions because it

That screen

lacks any indicia of

shows the

trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),

location of the

(8)(C). It is untrustworthy

case file at any

because Ms. Camacho made

particular point

her analysis underlying the

in time

evidence during the course of The Ventura Superior Court

following its

litigation, more than two

Ms. Camacho also has established
the foundational facts and requisite
personal knowledge to declare to
the matters stated in her
declaration. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 1.)

- 14 -

THE RECORDS FALL
WITHIN EXCEPTIONS TO
HEARSAY:
Public Records (FRE 803(A)).
records to which Ms. Camacho
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

processing date. months after the events in

refers—information concerning

For example,

question, and without her or

complaints filed with the court and

the attached

her subordinate specifically

maintained in the Court Case

screen shot

confirming the physical

Management System (“CCMS)—

shows the

location of any complaints.

are a “data compilation[], in any

Location

See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at

form” of a public agency that sets

History page

778; Olender, 210 F.2d at

forth “the activities of the office or

for City

801. Moreover, no evidence

agency . . . .” As a result, they are

National Bank

is offered corroborating the

admissible as a public record. (See

v. Star

underlying record or showing FRE 803(8)(A).)

Marketing &

it was made with firsthand

Media Inc., one knowledge or actually

CNS’s cases are inapposite and its

of the unlimited indicated what it purported to “factors” are insufficient to
general civil

reflect; it should therefore be overcome the presumption that the

complaints filed excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 records are trustworthy. See
on August 8,

F.2d at 998-999.

Ventura Superior Court’s response

2011: [image]

Lacks Foundation (FRE

re Camacho Decl. ¶ 4.

A full-page

104(b)); Lacks Personal

copy of this

Knowledge (FRE 602). The

screen shot of

evidence is inadmissible

Records of a Regularly
Conducted Activity (FRE
803(6)).

the Location

because Ms. Camacho lacks

The CCMS records, which are

History page

any foundation for or

created and kept in the regular

for City

personal knowledge of the

course of business, are also

National Bank

assertions made, specifically admissible under the business

v. Star

whether she personally

records exception to the hearsay

Marketing &

witnessed any complaints

rule. (FRE 803(6).)

Media Inc. is

being placed in the Media

- 15 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

attached hereto

Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.

as Exhibit B.”

Irrelevant (FRE 402);
Insufficiently Probative (FRE
403). The evidence is
irrelevant and inadmissible
because it does not show that
the particular complaint in
question was placed in the
media bin on a particular
date; rather it only shows that
those complaints ought to
have been placed in the
Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent
some correlation between the
matter asserted and the actual

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).
Ms. Camacho’s statements
establish that Ventura Superior
Court makes newly filed civil
complaints publicly available
within a reasonable amount of
time from the complaint’s receipt.
Relevant evidence is “evidence
having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact” of
consequence to the case more or
less probable than it would be
without the evidence. (FRE 401,
emphasis added.); see Curtin, 489
F.3d at 943.

location history of any
complaint, the evidence is
insufficiently probative to be
admissible. FRE 403.
Furthermore, the evidence
purports to link the

Ms. Camacho’s statements are
relevant because they rebut the
type of delay to access of newly
filed complaints that CNS claims.
Moreover, the fact that the Ventura

availability of a particular
complaint to whether or not a
complaint has been fully
processed, but fails to
establish why a complaint
could not be made available

- 16 -

Superior Court’s records show that
its policy (and practice) is to place
the records in the Media Bin on
the dates reflected negates CNS’s
section 1983 claim. See Polk
County, 454 U.S. at 326; see also
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

before it is fully processed,

3

Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-377.

and as such, is irrelevant.

2

Finally, Ms. Camacho’s statements
do not need to establish why a

4

complaint cannot be made

5

available prior to its being fully

6

processed, but ample other

7

evidence does. (See Kanatzar

8

Decl. ¶¶ 32-34.)

9
10

13

THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
OUTWEIGHED BY DANGER
OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE.
(FRE 403.)

14

CNS offers no facts establishing

15

any of the above factors that would

16

outweigh the probative value of

17

Ms. Camacho’s declaration and

18

thus the evidence is admissible.
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
HEARSAY:

11
12

19

Camacho Decl.

Hearsay (FRE 802); Not

20

¶ 8: “The type-

Subject to Any Exception

21

written notes at

(FRE 803). This evidence

22

the bottom of

comprises, relates, or is based

23

the screen shot

upon an out-of- court

24

are notes I

statement offered to prove

25

inputted as I

the truth of the matter

26

evaluated the

asserted and is therefore

27

date on which

inadmissible as hearsay. FRE

28

each case was

801, 802. It is not subject to
- 17 -

The evidence objected to does not
reflect an out-of-court statement;
rather, Ms. Camacho is describing
events based upon her own
personal perceptions. It is not
hearsay.
Ms. Camacho also has established
the foundational facts and requisite
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

received,

either the business or public

processed, and

records exceptions because it the matters stated in her

sent to the

lacks any indicia of

Media Bin.”

trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),

Camacho Decl.

(8)(C). It is untrustworthy

¶ 10: “The

because Ms. Camacho made

entries below

her analysis underlying the

the Case

evidence during the course of

Header box

litigation, more than two

reflect the

months after the event in

Location

question, and without her or

History for that

her subordinate specifically

particular file

confirming the physical

on any given

location of any complaints.

date after it has

See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at

been processed

778; Olender, 210 F.2d at

declaration. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 1.)

and entered into 801. Moreover, no evidence
CCMS.”

personal knowledge to declare to

is offered corroborating the
underlying record or showing

THE RECORDS FALL
WITHIN EXCEPTIONS TO
HEARSAY:
Public Records (FRE 803(A)).
The Ventura Superior Court
records to which Ms. Camacho
refers—information concerning
complaints filed with the court and
maintained in the Court Case
Management System (“CCMS)—
are a “data compilation[], in any
form” of a public agency that sets
forth “the activities of the office or
agency . . . .” As a result, they are
admissible as a public record. (See
FRE 803(8)(A).)

it was made with firsthand
knowledge or actually
indicated what it purported to
reflect; it should therefore be
excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935

CNS’s cases are inapposite and its
“factors” are insufficient to
overcome the presumption that the
records are trustworthy. See
Ventura Superior Court’s response

F.2d at 998-999.
Lacks Foundation (FRE

re Camacho Decl. ¶ 4.

104(b)); Lacks Personal

- 18 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

evidence is inadmissible

Records of a Regularly
Conducted Activity (FRE
803(6)).

because Ms. Camacho lacks

The CCMS records, which are

any foundation for or

created and kept in the regular

personal knowledge of the

course of business, are also

Knowledge (FRE 602). The

assertions made, specifically admissible under the business
whether she personally

records exception to the hearsay

witnessed any complaints

rule. (FRE 803(6).)

being placed in the Media
Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213
(8th Cir. 1994) (error to
allow witness to testify to
events described in medical
records where she had no
personal knowledge of said
events).

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).
Ms. Camacho’s statements
establish that Ventura Superior
Court makes newly filed civil
complaints publicly available
within a reasonable amount of
time from the complaint’s receipt.

Irrelevant (FRE 402);
Insufficiently Probative (FRE
403). The evidence is
irrelevant and inadmissible
because it does not show
when a particular complaint
was placed in the Media Bin;
rather it only shows that

Relevant evidence is “evidence
having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact” of
consequence to the case more or
less probable than it would be
without the evidence. (FRE 401,
emphasis added.); Curtin, 489
F.3d at 943.

those complaints ought to
have been placed in the
Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent

- 19 -

Ms. Camacho’s statements are
relevant because they rebut the
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

some correlation between the type of delay to access of newly
matter asserted and the actual filed complaints that CNS claims.
location history of any

Moreover, the fact that the Ventura

complaint, the evidence is

Superior Court’s records show that

insufficiently probative to be its policy (and practice) is to place
admissible. FRE 403.

the records in the Media Bin on

Furthermore, the evidence

the dates reflected negates CNS’s

purports to link the

section 1983 claim. See Polk

availability of a particular

County, 454 U.S. at 326; see also

complaint to whether or not a Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-377.
complaint has been fully
processed, but fails to

Finally, Ms. Camacho’s statements

establish why a complaint

do not need to establish why a

could not be made available

complaint cannot be made

for review before it is fully

available prior to its being fully

processed, and as such, is

processed, but ample other

irrelevant. FRE 402.

evidence does. (See Kanatzar
Decl. ¶¶ 32-34.)

19

THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
OUTWEIGHED BY DANGER
OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE.
(FRE 403.)

20
21
22
23

CNS offers no facts establishing

24

any of the above factors that would

25

outweigh the probative value of

26

Ms. Camacho’s declaration and

27

thus the evidence is admissible.

28
- 20 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Camacho Decl.

Hearsay (FRE 802); Not

¶ 11: “As the

Subject to Any Exception

above screen

(FRE 803). This evidence

shot shows,

comprises, relates, or is based

City National

upon an out-of-court

Bank v. Star

statement offered to prove

Marketing &

the truth of the matter

Media Inc. was

asserted and is therefore

received and

inadmissible as hearsay. FRE

filed on August

801, 802. It is not subject to

8, 2011. It was

either the business or public

processed and

records exceptions because it

sent to the

lacks any indicia of

Media Bin on

trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),

August 8, 2011

(8)(C). It is untrustworthy

THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
HEARSAY:
The evidence objected to does not
reflect an out-of-court statement;
rather, Ms. Camacho is describing
events based upon her own
personal perceptions. It is not
hearsay.
Ms. Camacho also has established
the foundational facts and requisite
personal knowledge to declare to
the matters stated in her
declaration. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 1.)

— the same day because Ms. Camacho made
it was received. her analysis underlying the

THE RECORDS FALL
WITHIN EXCEPTIONS TO
HEARSAY:
Public Records (FRE 803(A)).

In accordance

evidence during the course of The Ventura Superior Court

with our

litigation, more than two

records to which Ms. Camacho

standard

months after the event in

refers—information concerning

practice, the file question, and without her or

complaints filed with the court and

remained in the

her subordinate specifically

maintained in the Court Case

Media Bin in

confirming the physical

Management System (“CCMS)—

the Records

location of any complaints.

are a “data compilation[], in any

Department for

See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at

form” of a public agency that sets

ten days and

778; Olender, 210 F.2d at

forth “the activities of the office or

was then

801. Moreover, no evidence

agency . . . .” As a result, they are

- 21 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

admissible as a public record. (See

removed from

is offered corroborating the

the Media Bin

underlying record or showing FRE 803(8)(A).)

and shelved in

it was made with firsthand

Records.”

knowledge or actually

CNS’s cases are inapposite and its

indicated what it purported to “factors” are insufficient to
reflect; it should therefore be overcome the presumption that the
excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 records are trustworthy. See
F.2d at 998-999.

Ventura Superior Court’s response

Lacks Foundation (FRE

re Camacho Decl. ¶ 4.

104(b)); Lacks Personal
Knowledge (FRE 602). The
evidence is inadmissible
because Ms. Camacho lacks
any foundation for or
personal knowledge of the
assertions made, specifically
whether she personally
witnessed any complaints
being placed in the Media

Records of a Regularly
Conducted Activity (FRE
803(6)).
The CCMS records, which are
created and kept in the regular
course of business, are also
admissible under the business
records exception to the hearsay
rule. (FRE 803(6).)

Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).

Irrelevant (FRE 402);

Ms. Camacho’s statements

Insufficiently Probative (FRE establish that Ventura Superior
403). The evidence is

Court makes newly filed civil

irrelevant and inadmissible

complaints publicly available

because it does not show that within a reasonable amount of
the particular complaint in

time from the complaint’s receipt.

question was placed in the

Relevant evidence is “evidence

- 22 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

media bin on a particular

having any tendency to make the

date; rather it only shows that existence of any fact” of
those complaints ought to

consequence to the case more or

have been placed in the

less probable than it would be

Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent without the evidence. (FRE 401,
some correlation between the emphasis added.); see Curtin, 489
matter asserted and the actual F.3d at 943.
location history of any
complaint, the evidence is

Ms. Camacho’s statements are

insufficiently probative to be relevant because they rebut the
admissible. FRE 403.

type of delay to access of newly

Furthermore, the evidence

filed complaints that CNS claims.

purports to link the

Moreover, the fact that the Ventura

availability of a particular

Superior Court’s records show that

complaint to whether or not a its policy (and practice) is to place
complaint has been fully

the records in the Media Bin on

processed, but fails to

the dates reflected negates CNS’s

establish why a complaint

section 1983 claim. See Polk

could not be made available

County, 454 U.S. at 326; see also

before it is fully processed,

Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-377.

and as such, is irrelevant.
Finally, Ms. Camacho’s statements

FRE 402.

do not need to establish why a

24

complaint cannot be made

25

available prior to its being fully

26

processed, but ample other

27

evidence does. (See Kanatzar

28
- 23 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

Decl. ¶¶ 32-34.)

2
3

6

THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
OUTWEIGHED BY DANGER
OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE.
(FRE 403.)

7

CNS offers no facts establishing

8

any of the above factors that would

9

outweigh the probative value of

10

Ms. Camacho’s declaration and

11

thus the evidence is admissible.
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
HEARSAY:

4
5

12

Camacho Decl.

Hearsay (FRE 802); Not

13

¶ 12 & Ex. C:

Subject to Any Exception

14

“For each case

(FRE 803). This evidence

15

that was filed

comprises, relates, or is based

16

but not sent to

upon an out-of-court

17

the Media Bin

statement offered to prove

18

on the same

the truth of the matter

19

day, I reviewed

asserted and is therefore

20

the Case

inadmissible as hearsay. FRE

21

History screen

801, 802. It is not subject to

22

in CCMS to

either the business or public

23

determine when records exceptions because it

24

the file was

lacks any indicia of

25

processed. For

trustworthiness. FRE

26

example, the

803(6),(8)(C). It is

27

following

untrustworthy because Ms.

28

screen shot

Camacho made her analysis

The evidence objected to does not
reflect an out-of-court statement;
rather, Ms. Camacho is describing
events based upon her own
personal perceptions. It is not
hearsay.
Ms. Camacho also has established
the foundational facts and requisite
personal knowledge to declare to
the matters stated in her
declaration. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 1.)

- 24 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

shows the

underlying the evidence

Location

during the course of

History page

litigation, more than two

for Power

months after the event in

Gomez v.

question, and without her or

LaCouture, a

her subordinate specifically

case that was

confirming the physical

received and

location of any complaints.

deemed filed on See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at
August 8, 2011, 778; Olender, 210 F.2d at
but was not

801. Moreover, no evidence

sent to the

is offered corroborating the

Media Bin until underlying record or showing
August 9, 2011: it was made with firsthand
[image] A full-

knowledge or actually

page copy of

reflect; it should therefore be

of the Location

excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935

History page

F.2d at 998-

for Power

999.

Gomez v.

Lacks Foundation (FRE

LaCouture is

104(b)); Lacks Personal

attached hereto

Knowledge (FRE 602). The

as Exhibit C.”

evidence is inadmissible

The Ventura Superior Court
records to which Ms. Camacho
refers—information concerning
complaints filed with the court and
maintained in the Court Case
Management System (“CCMS)—
are a “data compilation[], in any
form” of a public agency that sets
forth “the activities of the office or
agency . . . .” As a result, they are
admissible as a public record. (See
FRE 803(8)(A).)

indicated what it purported to

this screen shot

THE RECORDS FALL
WITHIN EXCEPTIONS TO
HEARSAY:
Public Records (FRE 803(A)).

CNS’s cases are inapposite and its
“factors” are insufficient to
overcome the presumption that the
records are trustworthy. See

because Ms. Camacho lacks
any foundation for or
personal knowledge of the

Ventura Superior Court’s response
re Camacho Decl. ¶ 4.
Records of a Regularly
Conducted Activity (FRE
803(6)).
The CCMS records, which are
created and kept in the regular
course of business, are also

- 25 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

assertions made, specifically admissible under the business
whether she personally

records exception to the hearsay

witnessed any complaints

rule. (FRE 803(6).)

being placed in the Media
Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.
Irrelevant (FRE 402);
Insufficiently Probative (FRE
403). The evidence is
irrelevant and inadmissible
because it does not show that
the particular complaint in
question was placed in the
media bin on a particular
date; rather it only shows that
those complaints ought to
have been placed in the
Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent
some correlation between the
matter asserted and the actual

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).
Ms. Camacho’s statements
establish that Ventura Superior
Court makes newly filed civil
complaints publicly available
within a reasonable amount of
time from the complaint’s receipt.
Relevant evidence is “evidence
having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact” of
consequence to the case more or
less probable than it would be
without the evidence. (FRE 401,
emphasis added.); see Curtin, 489
F.3d at 943.

location history of any
complaint, the evidence is
insufficiently probative to be
admissible. FRE 403.
Furthermore, the evidence
purports to link the

Ms. Camacho’s statements are
relevant because they rebut the
type of delay to access of newly
filed complaints that CNS claims.
Moreover, the fact that the Ventura

availability of a particular
complaint to whether or not a

- 26 -

Superior Court’s records show that
its policy (and practice) is to place
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

complaint has been fully

6

County, 454 U.S. at 326; see also

before it is fully processed,

5

section 1983 claim. See Polk

could not be made available

4

the dates reflected negates CNS’s

establish why a complaint

3

the records in the Media Bin on

processed, but fails to

2

Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-377.

and as such, is irrelevant.

7

Finally, Ms. Camacho’s statements

FRE 402.

8

do not need to establish why a

9

complaint cannot be made

10

available prior to its being fully

11

processed, but ample other

12

evidence does. (See Kanatzar

13

Decl. ¶¶ 32-34.)

14

THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
OUTWEIGHED BY DANGER
OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE.
(FRE 403.)

15
16
17
18

CNS offers no facts establishing

19

any of the above factors that would

20

outweigh the probative value of

21

Ms. Camacho’s declaration and

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Camacho Decl.

Hearsay (FRE 802); Not

¶ 13 & Ex. D:

Subject to Any Exception

“The Case

(FRE 803). This evidence

History screen

comprises, relates, or is based

in the system

upon an out-of- court
- 27 -

thus the evidence is admissible.
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
HEARSAY:
The evidence objected to does not
reflect an out-of-court statement;
rather, Ms. Camacho is describing
events based upon her own
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

shows even

statement offered to prove

personal perceptions. It is not

more detail,

the truth of the matter

hearsay.

including each

asserted and is therefore

Ms. Camacho also has established

document that

inadmissible as hearsay. FRE the foundational facts and requisite

was processed

801, 802. It is not subject to

personal knowledge to declare to

along with the

either the business or public

the matters stated in her

new complaint.

records exceptions because it declaration. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 1.)

Thus, for Power lacks any indicia of

complaint,

trustworthiness. FRE 803(6), THE RECORDS FALL
WITHIN EXCEPTIONS TO
(8)(C). It is untrustworthy
HEARSAY:
Public Records (FRE 803(A)).
because Ms. Camacho made

declaration for

her analysis underlying the

court

evidence during the course of

Gomez v.
LaCouture, a

assignment, and litigation, more than two
civil case cover

months after the event in

sheet were

question, and without her or

processed as

her subordinate specifically

part of the

confirming the physical

initial filing of

location of any complaints.

the complaint.

See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at

Because the

778; Olender, 210 F.2d at

complaint was

801. Moreover, no evidence

received on

is offered corroborating the

August 8, all

The Ventura Superior Court
records to which Ms. Camacho
refers—information concerning
complaints filed with the court and

underlying record or showing

documents have it was made with firsthand
a filed date of

knowledge or actually

August 8 as

indicated what it purported to

maintained in the Court Case
Management System (“CCMS)—
are a “data compilation[], in any
form” of a public agency that sets
forth “the activities of the office or
agency . . . .” As a result, they are
admissible as a public record. (See
FRE 803(8)(A).)
CNS’s cases are inapposite and its
“factors” are insufficient to
overcome the presumption that the
records are trustworthy. See

- 28 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

well. However,

reflect; it should therefore be Ventura Superior Court’s response

by placing my

excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 re Camacho Decl. ¶ 4.

cursor over the

F.2d at 998-

person icon on

999.

the screen I am

Lacks Foundation (FRE

Records of a Regularly
Conducted Activity (FRE
803(6)).

able to

104(b)); Lacks Personal

The CCMS records, which are

determine that

Knowledge (FRE 602). The

created and kept in the regular

the documents

evidence is inadmissible

course of business, are also

were

because Ms. Camacho lacks

admissible under the business

backdated. A

any foundation for or

records exception to the hearsay

small box

personal knowledge of the

rule. (FRE 803(6).)

opens up to

assertions made, specifically

show the actual

whether she personally

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).

date and time

witnessed this particular

Ms. Camacho’s statements

the documents

complaint being placed in the establish that Ventura Superior

were processed, Media Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at Court makes newly filed civil
not just the date 213.

complaints publicly available

they were

Irrelevant (FRE 402);

within a reasonable amount of

deemed filed:

Insufficiently Probative (FRE time from the complaint’s receipt.

[image] A full-

403). The evidence is

Relevant evidence is “evidence

page copy of

irrelevant and inadmissible

having any tendency to make the

this screen shot

because it does not show that existence of any fact” of

for Power

the particular complaint cited consequence to the case more or

Gomez v.

was placed in the media bin

less probable than it would be

LaCouture is

on a particular date; rather it

without the evidence. (FRE 401,

attached hereto

only shows that those

emphasis added.); see Curtin, 489

as Exhibit D.”

complaints ought to have

F.3d at 943.

- 29 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Camacho Decl.

been placed in the Media

Ms. Camacho’s statements are

¶ 14: “All the

Bin. FRE 402. Absent some

relevant because they rebut the

documents for

correlation between the

type of delay to access of newly

the Power

matter asserted and the actual filed complaints that CNS claims.

Gomez v.

location history of any

Moreover, the fact that the Ventura

LaCouture file

complaint, the evidence is

Superior Court’s records show that

were processed

insufficiently probative to be its policy (and practice) is to place

on August 9,

admissible. FRE 403.

the records in the Media Bin on

2011, at 8:16

Furthermore, the evidence

the dates reflected negates CNS’s

a.m.—

purports to link the

section 1983 claim. See Polk

essentially the

availability of a particular

County, 454 U.S. at 326; see also

first thing the

complaint to whether or not a Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-377.

next morning

complaint has been fully

after it was

processed, but fails to

Finally, Ms. Camacho’s statements

received. And

establish why a complaint

do not need to establish why a

as the prior

could not be made available

complaint cannot be made

screen shot

before it is fully processed,

available prior to its being fully

shows, the file

and as such, is irrelevant.

processed, but ample other

was sent to the

FRE 402.

evidence does. (See Kanatzar
Decl. ¶¶ 32-34.)

Media Bin that
same day.”

25

THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
OUTWEIGHED BY DANGER
OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE.
(FRE 403.)

26

CNS offers no facts establishing

27

any of the above factors that would

28

outweigh the probative value of

23
24

- 30 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

Ms. Camacho’s declaration and

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Camacho Decl.

Hearsay (FRE 802); Not

¶¶ 15-21,

Subject to Any Exception

relating Ms.

(FRE 803). This evidence

Camacho’s

comprises, relates, or is based

analysis of all

upon an out-of- court

new unlimited

statement offered to prove

general civil

the truth of the matter

thus the evidence is admissible.
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
HEARSAY:
The evidence objected to does not
reflect an out-of-court statement;
rather, Ms. Camacho is describing
events based upon her own
personal perceptions. It is not
hearsay.

complaints filed asserted and is therefore
on all court

inadmissible as hearsay. FRE

days between

801, 802. It is not subject to

August 8, 2011, either the business or public

Ms. Camacho also has established
the foundational facts and requisite
personal knowledge to declare to

and September

records exceptions because it

2, 2011:

lacks any indicia of

“15. I

trustworthiness. FRE 803(6),

conducted an

(8)(C). It is untrustworthy

identical

because Ms. Camacho made

analysis for all

her analysis underlying the

new unlimited

evidence during the course of The Ventura Superior Court

general civil

litigation, more than two

the matters stated in her
declaration. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 1.)

complaints filed months after the events in

THE RECORDS FALL
WITHIN EXCEPTIONS TO
HEARSAY:
Public Records (FRE 803(A)).
records to which Ms. Camacho
refers—information concerning

on all court

question, and without her or

complaints filed with the court and

days between

her subordinate specifically

maintained in the Court Case

August 8, 2011, confirming the physical

Management System (“CCMS)—

and September

location of any complaints.

are a “data compilation[], in any

2, 2011. My

See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at

form” of a public agency that sets

- 31 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

analysis

778; Olender, 210 F.2d at

forth “the activities of the office or

revealed that

801. Moreover, no evidence

agency . . . .” As a result, they are

147 new

is offered corroborating the

admissible as a public record. (See

unlimited

underlying record or showing FRE 803(8)(A).)

general civil

it was made with firsthand

complaints

knowledge or actually

were filed by

indicated what it purported to “factors” are insufficient to

Ventura

reflect; it should therefore be overcome the presumption that the

Superior Court

excluded. Chu Kong Yin, 935 records are trustworthy. See

during that

F.2d at 998-999.

Ventura Superior Court’s response

time.

Lacks Foundation (FRE

re Camacho Decl. ¶ 4.

16. Of those

104(b)); Lacks Personal

147 new

Knowledge (FRE 602). The

unlimited

evidence is inadmissible

Records of a Regularly
Conducted Activity (FRE
803(6)).

general civil

because Ms. Camacho lacks

The CCMS records, which are

complaints, 47

any foundation for or

created and kept in the regular

of them were

personal knowledge of the

course of business, are also

received,

assertions made, specifically admissible under the business

processed and

whether she personally

records exception to the hearsay

placed in the

witnessed any complaints

rule. (FRE 803(6).)

Media Bin all

being placed in the Media

on the same

Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.

Summaries (FRE 1006).

day.

Irrelevant (FRE 402);

Ms. Camacho’s testimony

17. Fifty-four

Insufficiently Probative (FRE summarizes the contents of 147

(54) of them

403). The evidence is

CCMS case files and

were received

irrelevant and inadmissible

accompanying documents—a

on one day and

because it does not show

voluminous set of records that

- 32 -

CNS’s cases are inapposite and its

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

processed and

when any complaints were

could not conveniently be

placed in the

placed in the Media Bin;

examined in court and are

Media Bin on

rather it only shows that

therefore admissible as a

the next day.

those complaints ought to

summary. (FRE 1006.) To the

18. Another 18

have been placed in the

extent CNS desires to review the

of them were

Media Bin. FRE 402. Absent underlying documents, the

processed and

some correlation between the originals or duplicates will be

placed in the

matter asserted and the actual made available for examination or

Media Bin

location history of any

within two days complaint, the evidence is
of receipt.

admissible. FRE 403.

(17) of the 147

Furthermore, the evidence

new unlimited

purports to link the

general civil

availability of a particular

complaints

complaint to whether or not a

needed to be

complaint has been fully

directed to a

processed, but fails to

judicial officer

establish why a complaint

place.

insufficiently probative to be

19. Seventeen

copying at a reasonable time and

Ms. Camacho’s statements
establish that Ventura Superior

immediately, or could not be made available
were

before it is fully processed,

transferred in

and as such, is irrelevant.

from a Superior FRE 402. Furthermore, the
Court in

evidence purports to link the

another county.

availability of a particular

20. Seven (7) of complaint to whether or not a
them did not

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).

Court makes newly filed civil
complaints publicly available
within a reasonable amount of
time from the complaint’s receipt.
Relevant evidence is “evidence
having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact” of
consequence to the case more or
less probable than it would be
without the evidence. (FRE 401,
emphasis added.); see Curtin, 489
F.3d at 943.

complaint has been fully

- 33 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

get placed in

processed, but fails to

Ms. Camacho’s statements are

the Media Bin

establish why a complaint

relevant because they rebut the

due to an

could not be made available

type of delay to access of newly

inadvertent

before it is fully processed,

filed complaints that CNS claims.

clerical error.

and as such, is irrelevant.

Moreover, the fact that the Ventura

21. Of the

FRE 402.

Superior Court’s records show that

remaining four

Unsubstantiated Summary

its policy (and practice) is to place

(4) files, three

(FRE 1006). The evidence is the records in the Media Bin on

filings were

inadmissible because

the dates reflected negates CNS’s

backdated five

Defendant has not provided

section 1983 claim. See Polk

(5) days and

Plaintiff with an opportunity

County, 454 U.S. at 326; see also

one filing was

to examine the underlying

Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-377.

backdated 10

writings or recordings.

days. These

Finally, Ms. Camacho’s statements

files had delays

do not need to establish why a

that were due

complaint cannot be made

either to being

available prior to its being fully

received and

processed, but ample other

couriered from

evidence does. (See Kanatzar

the Simi Valley

Decl. ¶¶ 32-34.)

branch, or from

cannot be

THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
OUTWEIGHED BY DANGER
OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE.
(FRE 403.)

tracked through

CNS offers no facts establishing

CCMS or

any of the above factors that would

independently

outweigh the probative value of

an anomaly in
processing that

- 34 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

recalled by the

Ms. Camacho’s declaration and

CPAs who

thus the evidence is admissible.

processed the
filings. Given
the hundreds of
documents our
CPAs must
process by hand
each day, this is
not surprising.
Those
remaining files,
however, did
eventually
make it to the
Media Bin.”
Camacho Decl.

Hearsay (FRE 802); Not

¶ 22: “I further

Subject to Any Exception

understand that

(FRE 803). This evidence

CNS has

comprises, relates, or is

complained in

based upon an out-of- court

the past about

statement offered to prove

four specific

the truth of the matter

case files and

asserted and is therefore

alleged delays

inadmissible as hearsay.

of access to

FRE 801, 802. It is not

each ranging

subject to either the business

THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
HEARSAY:

- 35 -

The evidence objected to does not
reflect an out-of-court statement;
rather, Ms. Camacho is describing
events based upon her own
personal perceptions. It is not
hearsay.
Ms. Camacho also has established
the foundational facts and requisite
personal knowledge to declare to
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

from eight to 13 or public records exceptions
days. I have

because it lacks any indicia

researched

of trustworthiness. FRE

those files

803(6), (8)(C). It is

through the

untrustworthy because Ms.

information

Camacho made her analysis

available in

underlying the evidence

CCMS and

during the course of

have

litigation, months after the

determined the

events in question, and

following:

without her or her

(a) Estrada v.

subordinate specifically

Rubio’s

confirming the physical

Restaurant,

location of any complaints.

Inc.,

See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at

Case No. 56-

778; Olender, 210 F.2d at

2010-

801. Moreover, no evidence

the matters stated in her
declaration. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 1.)
THE RECORDS FALL
WITHIN EXCEPTIONS TO
HEARSAY:
Public Records (FRE 803(A)).
The Ventura Superior Court
records to which Ms. Camacho
refers—information concerning
complaints filed with the court and
maintained in the Court Case

00387332: This is offered corroborating the
case was

showing it was made with

processed into

firsthand knowledge or

CCMS, and

actually indicated what it

are a “data compilation[], in any
form” of a public agency that sets
forth “the activities of the office or
agency . . . .” As a result, they are
admissible as a public record. (See
FRE 803(8)(A).)

underlying record or

received,

Management System (“CCMS)—

deemed filed all purported to reflect; it

CNS’s cases are inapposite and its
“factors” are insufficient to
overcome the presumption that the
records are trustworthy. See
Ventura Superior Court’s response

on December

should therefore be

20,

excluded. Chu Kong Yin,

2010, and then

935 F.2d at 998-999.

sent to the

Lacks Foundation (FRE

- 36 -

re Camacho Decl. ¶ 4.

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Media Bin that

104(b)); Lacks Personal

same day.

Knowledge (FRE 602). The

Records of a Regularly
Conducted Activity (FRE
803(6)).

(b) Berber v.

evidence is inadmissible

The CCMS records, which are

Holiday

because Ms. Camacho lacks

created and kept in the regular

Retirement,

any foundation for or

course of business, are also

Case No. 56-

personal knowledge of the

admissible under the business

2010-

assertions made, specifically records exception to the hearsay

00387945: This whether she personally
case was

witnessed any complaints

received and

being placed in the Media

rule. (FRE 803(6).)
Summaries (FRE 1006).

deemed filed on Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.

Ms. Camacho’s testimony

December 28,

Irrelevant (FRE 402);

summarizes the contents of 147

2010, and was

Insufficiently Probative

CCMS case files and

processed into

(FRE 403). The evidence is

accompanying documents—a

CCMS on

irrelevant and inadmissible

voluminous set of records that

January 4,

because it does not show

could not conveniently be

2011. The file

that any of the cited

examined in court and are

was sent to the

complaints were actually

therefore admissible as a

Media Bin the

placed in the Media Bin on

summary. (FRE 1006.) To the

same day it was the date that Ms. Camacho

extent CNS desires to review the

processed. The

claims they were placed in

underlying documents, the

delay in

the media bin; rather it only

originals or duplicates will be

processing

shows that those complaints

made available for examination or

likely was due

ought to have been placed in copying at a reasonable time and

to the

the Media Bin. FRE 402.

intervening

Absent some correlation

New Year’s

between the matter asserted

- 37 -

place.

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Holiday.

and the actual location

(c) Harrison v.

history of any complaint, the

Rite Aide

evidence is insufficiently

Corp., Case No. probative to be admissible.
56-2010-

FRE 403.

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).
Ms. Camacho’s statements
establish that Ventura Superior
Court makes newly filed civil
complaints publicly available

00387942: This Unsubstantiated Summary
case was

(FRE 1006). The evidence is

received and

inadmissible because

deemed filed on Defendant has not provided
December 28,

Plaintiff with an opportunity

2010, and was

to examine the underlying

processed into

writings or recordings.

CCMS on

within a reasonable amount of
time from the complaint’s receipt.
Relevant evidence is “evidence
having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact” of
consequence to the case more or
less probable than it would be
without the evidence. (FRE 401,

January 4,

emphasis added.); see Curtin, 489

2011. The file

F.3d at 943.

was sent to the
Media Bin the

Ms. Camacho’s statements are

same day it was

relevant because they rebut the

processed. The

type of delay to access of newly

delay in

filed complaints that CNS claims.

processing

Moreover, the fact that the Ventura

likely was due

Superior Court’s records show that

to the

its policy (and practice) is to place

intervening

the records in the Media Bin on

New Year’s

the dates reflected negates CNS’s

Holiday.

section 1983 claim. See Polk

(d) Latham v.

County, 454 U.S. at 326; see also
- 38 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-377.

Bumbarger,
Case No.
56-2011-

Finally, Ms. Camacho’s statements

00389425: This

do not need to establish why a

case was

complaint cannot be made

received,

available prior to its being fully

processed and

processed, but ample other

deemed filed on

evidence does. (See Kanatzar

January 12,

Decl. ¶¶ 32-34.)

2011, and was
THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
OUTWEIGHED BY DANGER
OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE.
(FRE 403.)

immediately
delivered to a
judicial officer
for review of a

CNS offers no facts establishing

fee waiver that

any of the above factors that would

was presented

outweigh the probative value of

with the

Ms. Camacho’s declaration and

complaint.”

20

Camacho Decl.

Hearsay (FRE 802); Not

21

¶ 23: “None of

Subject to Any Exception

22

these cases

(FRE 803). This evidence

23

reflect the type

comprises, relates, or is

24

of delay to

based upon an out of- court

25

access that

statement offered to prove

26

CNS claims.”

the truth of the matter

27

The evidence objected to does not
reflect an out-of-court statement;
rather, Ms. Camacho is describing
events based upon her own
personal perceptions. It is not
hearsay.

asserted and is therefore

28

thus the evidence is admissible.
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
HEARSAY:

inadmissible as hearsay.
- 39 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FRE 801, 802. It is not

Because Ms. Camacho’s

subject to either the business statements are (i) rationally based
or public records exceptions

upon her own personal perceptions

because it lacks any indicia

(and based upon records

of trustworthiness. FRE

admissible under several hearsay

803(6), (8)(C). It is

exceptions, discussed infra),

untrustworthy because Ms.

(ii) helpful to understand her

Camacho made her analysis

testimony, and (iii) not based on

underlying the evidence

specialized knowledge, they are

during the course of

proper opinion testimony under

litigation, months after the

FRE 701.

event in question, and
without her or her

Ms. Camacho also has established

subordinate specifically

the foundational facts and requisite

confirming the physical

personal knowledge to declare to

location of any complaints.

the matters stated in her

See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at

declaration. (Camacho Decl. ¶ 1.)

778; Olender, 210 F.2d at
801. Moreover, no evidence
is offered corroborating the
underlying record or
showing it was made with
firsthand knowledge or
actually indicated what it
purported to reflect; it

THE RECORDS FALL
WITHIN EXCEPTIONS TO
HEARSAY:
Public Records (FRE 803(A)).
The Ventura Superior Court
records to which Ms. Camacho
refers—information concerning
complaints filed with the court and
maintained in the Court Case

should therefore be
excluded. Chu Kong Yin,

Management System (“CCMS)—
are a “data compilation[], in any

- 40 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

935 F.2d at 998-999.

form” of a public agency that sets

Lacks Foundation (FRE

forth “the activities of the office or

104(b)); Lacks Personal

agency . . . .” As a result, they are

Knowledge (FRE 602). The

admissible as a public record. (See

evidence is inadmissible

FRE 803(8)(A).)

because Ms. Camacho lacks
any foundation for or

CNS’s cases are inapposite and its

personal knowledge of the

“factors” are insufficient to

assertions made, specifically overcome the presumption that the
whether she personally

records are trustworthy. See

witnessed any complaints

Ventura Superior Court’s response

being placed in the Media

re Camacho Decl. ¶ 4.

Bin. Kemp, 23 F.3d at 213.
Insufficiently Probative

Records of a Regularly
Conducted Activity (FRE
803(6)).

(FRE 403). The evidence is

The CCMS records, which are

irrelevant and inadmissible

created and kept in the regular

because it does not show

course of business, are also

when any complaints were

admissible under the business

placed in the Media Bin;

records exception to the hearsay

rather it purports only to

rule. (FRE 803(6).)

Irrelevant (FRE 402);

show that those complaints
ought to have been placed in Summaries (FRE 1006).
the Media Bin. FRE 402.

Ms. Camacho’s testimony

Absent some correlation

summarizes the contents of 147

between the matter asserted

CCMS case files and

and the actual location

accompanying documents—a

- 41 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

history of any complaint, the voluminous set of records that
evidence is insufficiently

could not conveniently be

probative to be admissible.

examined in court and are

FRE 403.

therefore admissible as a

Improper Opinion

summary. (FRE 1006.) To the

Testimony (FRE 701). The

extent CNS desires to review the

evidence is inadmissible as

underlying documents, the

improper lay opinion

originals or duplicates will be

testimony because Ms.

made available for examination or

Camacho offers an opinion

copying at a reasonable time and

not rationally based on her

place.

own personal perception,
and thus is not helpful to a
clear understanding of her
testimony or the

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).
Ms. Camacho’s statements
establish that Ventura Superior

determination of a fact in
issue. FRE 701(a), (b).
Unsubstantiated Summary
(FRE 1006). The evidence is
inadmissible because
Defendant has not provided
Plaintiff with an opportunity
to examine the underlying
writings or recordings.

Court makes newly filed civil
complaints publicly available
within a reasonable amount of
time from the complaint’s receipt.
Relevant evidence is “evidence
having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact” of
consequence to the case more or
less probable than it would be

26

without the evidence. (FRE 401,

27

emphasis added.); see Curtin, 489

28

F.3d at 943.
- 42 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

Ms. Camacho’s statements are

2

relevant because they rebut the

3

type of delay to access of newly

4

filed complaints that CNS claims.

5

Moreover, the fact that the Ventura

6

Superior Court’s records show that

7

its policy (and practice) is to place

8

the records in the Media Bin on

9

the dates reflected negates CNS’s

10

section 1983 claim. See Polk

11

County, 454 U.S. at 326; see also

12

Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-377.

13
14

Finally, Ms. Camacho’s statements

15

do not need to establish why a

16

complaint cannot be made

17

available prior to its being fully

18

processed, but ample other

19

evidence does. (See Kanatzar

20

Decl. ¶¶ 32-34.)

21

THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
OUTWEIGHED BY DANGER
OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE.
(FRE 403.)

22
23
24
25

CNS offers no facts establishing

26

any of the above factors that would

27

outweigh the probative value of

28
- 43 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1

Ms. Camacho’s declaration and

2

thus the evidence is admissible.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

II. OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF CHERYL KANATZAR
Ventura Superior Court’s
CNS’s Objections
Evidence
Response
THE EVIDENCE IS
Irrelevant (FRE 402).
Declaration of
RELEVANT (FRE 402).
The evidence is
Cheryl Kanatzar
Ms. Kanatzar’s statement
(“Kanatzar Decl.”), inadmissible as
demonstrates the significant
¶ 5: “[T]he CPAs in irrelevant to the legal
number of civil filings that
issues posed by
the civil clerks
Ventura Superior Court has had to
Courthouse News
office are
contend with over the last several
Service in connection
responsible for
years, which CNS does not
receiving, filing and with its preliminary
dispute. That fact is relevant not
processing in excess injunction motion.
only to CNS’s legal claim
of 151,000 separate Courthouse News does
regarding the court’s failure to
not dispute that the staff
filings each year:
provide same-day access to newly
2008 Civil Filings – at Ventura Superior
filed civil unlimited jurisdiction
processes large amounts
144,184
complaints, but also to Ventura
2009 Civil Filings – of court records, just as
Superior Court’s defense that the
other courts do.
151,281
relief CNS seeks in this case
2010 Civil Filings –
warrants this Court’s abstention.
151,203”
Relevant evidence is “evidence

24

having any tendency to make the

25

existence of any fact” of

26

consequence to the case more or

27

less probable than it would be

28

without the evidence. (FRE 401,
- 44 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2

Evidence

CNS’s Objections

Ventura Superior Court’s
Response

3

emphasis added); see also Boyd v.

4

City & Cnty. of S.F., 576 F.3d

5

938, 943 (9th Cir. 2009)

6

(“Evidence may be relevant even

7

if it is redundant or cumulative, or

8

if it relates to undisputed facts.”)
THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).

Kanatzar Decl. ¶¶

Irrelevant (FRE 402).

10

6-11, 29, 32 &

The evidence is

11

Exhs.

inadmissible as

12

A, B: Ms. Kanatzar

irrelevant to the legal

13

reviews the Ventura issues posed by

14

Superior Court’s

Courthouse News

15

office staffing and

Service in connection

16

caseload generally,

with its preliminary

17

and also cites the

injunction motion.

18

court’s current

Courthouse News does

19

budget difficulties.

not dispute that Ventura

9

Ms. Kanatzar’s statements and
accompanying exhibits
demonstrate that the Ventura
Superior Court is critically

20

Superior is facing

21

serious staffing and

22

budget difficulties, and

23

Courthouse News is not

24

asking Defendant or his

25

staff to process

26

records any faster or

27

spend more money

28

to hire additional staff.

understaffed and underfunded in
light of the significant number of
civil filings its clerks are required
to process on a daily basis. CNS
does not dispute these facts,
which are relevant not only to
CNS’s legal claim regarding the
court’s failure to provide sameday access to newly filed civil
unlimited jurisdiction complaints,
but also to Ventura Superior
Court’s defense that the relief

- 45 -

CNS seeks in this case warrants
this Court’s abstention. The
evidence is also relevant to
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2

Evidence

CNS’s Objections

Ventura Superior Court’s
Response

3

dispute CNS’s contention that it is

4

not asking Ventura Superior

5

Court to process records faster or

6

spend more money to provide

7

same-day access to newly filed

8

civil complaints: it may not be

9

directly asking for those things,

10

but the practical effect of its

11

requested relief requires them.

12

(FRE 401); Boyd, 576 F.3d at

13

943.
THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).

14

Kanatzar Decl. ¶ 12

Irrelevant (FRE 402).

15

& Ex. C: “First, we

The evidence is

16

reduced the public

inadmissible as

17

business hours for

irrelevant to the legal

18

the clerk’s office

issues posed by

19

effective July 1,

Courthouse News

20

2009. As can be

Service in connection

21

seen from this

with its preliminary

22

excerpt from the

injunction motion.

23

July 1, 2009

Courthouse News does

24

memorandum

not dispute that Ventura

25

issued to all staff in

Superior is facing

26

the clerk’s office,

serious staffing and

27

which I approved,

budget difficulties, and

28

the public and

Courthouse News is not

Ms. Kanatzar’s statement and
accompanying exhibit
demonstrate that the Ventura
Superior Court is operating on a

- 46 -

reduced schedule in order to
accommodate critical budgetary
and staffing constraints, which
CNS does not dispute. These
facts are relevant not only to
CNS’s legal claim regarding the
court’s failure to provide sameday access to newly filed civil
unlimited jurisdiction complaints,
but also to Ventura Superior
Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2

Evidence

CNS’s Objections

Ventura Superior Court’s
Response

3

telephone hours

asking Defendant or his

Court’s defense that the relief

4

were reduced so

staff to process records

CNS seeks in this case warrants

5

that the doors to the

any faster or spend more this Court’s abstention. The

6

clerk’s office would money to hire additional evidence also is relevant to

7

be closed at 4:00

8

p.m., rather than

not asking Ventura Superior

9

5:00 p.m.”

Court to process records faster or

dispute CNS’s contention that it is

staff.

10

spend more money to provide

11

same-day access to newly filed

12

unlimited civil complaints: it may

13

not be directly asking for those

14

things, but the practical effect of

15

its requested relief requires them.

16

(FRE 401); Boyd, 576 F.3d at

17

943.
THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).

18

Kanatzar Decl. ¶¶

Irrelevant (FRE 402).

19

13-17: Ms.

The evidence is

20

Kanatzar reviews

inadmissible as

21

the various methods irrelevant to the legal

22

by which litigants

issues posed by

23

can file new

Courthouse News

24

complaints at

Service in connection

25

Ventura Superior.

with its preliminary

26

Paragraphs 13-17 demonstrate
efforts taken by Ventura Superior
Court to accommodate reduced
staffing levels while still ensuring

injunction motion.

the efficient processing of civil
filings. These changes, including
requiring complaints to be
dropped off for later processing

27

by behind-the-counter clerks, are

28

factually relevant not only to
- 47 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2

Evidence

CNS’s Objections

Ventura Superior Court’s
Response

3

CNS’s legal claim regarding the

4

court’s failure to provide same-

5

day access to newly filed civil

6

unlimited jurisdiction complaints,

7

but also to Ventura Superior

8

Court’s defense that the relief

9

CNS seeks in this case warrants

10

this Court’s abstention. (FRE

11

401.)
THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).

12

Kanatzar Decl. ¶

Irrelevant (FRE 402).

13

18: “As a practical

The evidence is

14

matter, CNS’s

inadmissible as

15

reporter is the only

irrelevant to the legal

16

‘reporter’ who asks

issues posed by

17

to see our new case

Courthouse News

18

files. The Superior

Service in connection

19

Court only

with its preliminary

20

infrequently

injunction motion.

21

receives requests

22

from other reporters

23

for access to case

24

files or new

25

complaints. As is

26

the case with CNS,

27

we grant other

28

reporters the same

Paragraph 18 demonstrates that
Ventura Superior Court provides
the same access to CNS that it
provides to the general public.
This fact is relevant to dispute
CNS’s claim that, as a “surrogate
for the public,” it is legally
entitled to greater access to newly
filed unlimited civil complaints—
i.e., prior to full processing—than
the public. (FRE 401.)

- 48 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2

Evidence

CNS’s Objections

3

access we provide

4

to members of the

5

general public.”

6

Kanatzar Decl. ¶¶

Irrelevant (FRE 402).

7

30-34: Ms.

The evidence is

8

Kanatzar offers

inadmissible as

9

various reasons why irrelevant to the legal

Ventura Superior Court’s
Response

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).
Ms. Kanatzar’s statements
demonstrate three distinct reasons

10

she believes it is

issues posed by

11

“not possible” to

Courthouse News

12

provide same-day

Service in connection

13

access to newly-

with its preliminary

14

filed unlimited

injunction motion. The

15

complaints.

assertions set forth in ¶¶

why it is not possible for Ventura
Superior Court to provide same-

16

30-34 do not address

17

why it is “not possible”

18

to provide same-day

19

access to new civil

20

unlimited complaints.

21

Rather, they offer Ms.

22

Kanatzar’s reasons for

23

why the processing of

24

new civil unlimited

25

complaints may be

26

delayed.

day access to newly filed
unlimited civil complaints. These
facts are relevant not only to
CNS’s legal claim regarding the
court’s failure to provide sameday access to newly filed civil
complaints, but also to Ventura
Superior Court’s defense that the
relief CNS seeks in this case
warrants this Court’s abstention.
(FRE 401.) Despite CNS’s
argument to the contrary,
paragraphs 32-34 do demonstrate
why it is not possible for Ventura
Superior Court to provide same
day access.

27
28
- 49 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

III. OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROBERT SHERMAN
Ventura Superior Court’s
Evidence
CNS’s Objections
Response
THE EVIDENCE IS
Irrelevant (FRE 402).
Declaration of
RELEVANT (FRE 402).
Robert Sherman in The evidence is
Mr. Sherman’s statements and
inadmissible as
Support of
accompanying exhibits
irrelevant to the legal
Defendant’s
demonstrate that Ventura
issues posed by
Opposition to
Superior Court is critically
Courthouse News
Plaintiff’s Motion
understaffed and underfunded in
Service in connection
for Preliminary
light California’s unprecedented
with its preliminary
Injunction
budget crisis. CNS does not
(“Sherman Decl.”), injunction motion.
dispute these facts, which are
¶¶ 2-15 & Exhs. A Courthouse News does
relevant not only to CNS’s legal
and B: Mr. Sherman not dispute that Ventura
claim regarding the court’s failure
Superior is facing
summarizes the
to provide same-day access to
serious budget
shortfalls of
newly filed unlimited civil
revenue incumbent difficulties, and
complaints, but also to Ventura
Courthouse News is not
on Ventura
Superior Court’s defense that the
asking Defendant or his
Superior.
relief CNS seeks in this case
staff to process records
warrants this Court’s abstention.
any faster or spend more
The evidence also is relevant to
money to hire additional
dispute CNS’s contention that it is
staff.
not asking Ventura Superior

24

Court to process records faster or

25

spend more money to provide

26

same-day access to newly filed

27

civil complaints: it may not be

28

directly asking for those things,
- 50 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2

Evidence

CNS’s Objections

Ventura Superior Court’s
Response

3

but the practical effect of its

4

requested relief requires them.

5

(FRE 401); Boyd, 576 F.3d at

6

943.

7
8
9

IV. OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF KAREN DALTON-KOCH
Ventura Superior Court’s
CNS’s Objections
Evidence
Response

10

Declaration of

Irrelevant (FRE 402);

FOUNDATION/ADMISSION.

11

Karen Dalton-Koch

Lacks Foundation (FRE

Ms. Dalton-Koch, an officer of

12

in Support of

104(b)). Ms. Dalton-

the Superior Court, testified that

13

Defendant’s

Koch’s exhibit, offered

her office received the document

14

Opposition to

to dispute Courthouse

entitled “Score: Report Card

15

Plaintiff’s Motion

News’ assertion that

Detail” (the “Report Card”), and

16

for Preliminary

there is a tradition of

CNS does not dispute the

17

Injunction, Exhibit

timely access to new

authenticity of the document it

18

A: (document

complaints, is irrelevant

created. Thus, a proper

19

entitled “Score:

that proposition. FRE

foundation has been laid for Ms.

20

Report Card

401. The document was

Dalton-Koch’s testimony.

21

Detail”)

produced to document

Moreover, the document is

22

the recent deterioration

admissible as an admission of a

23

of access at some courts; party-opponent. (FRE

24

not as an historical

25

overview of access.

801(d)(2).)

26

THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT (FRE 402).

27

CNS’s Report Card purports to

28

give letter grades to the courts in
- 51 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2

Evidence

CNS’s Objections

Ventura Superior Court’s
Response

3

California based on their

4

provision of “same-day access”

5

to newly filed complaints. The

6

Report Card gives only five out

7

of seventeen courts “A” grades,

8

and gives a full ten of the

9

seventeen courts “C,” “D,” and

10

“F” grades. CNS’s “grading” of

11

the California courts’ provision

12

of same-day access is directly

13

relevant to CNS’s claim of a

14

“tradition” of same-day access

15

and underscores the lack of any

16

such “tradition.”

17
18

Separately, the purpose for

19

which the Report Card

20

purportedly was created is

21

irrelevant to determining its

22

admissibility. Moreover,

23

notwithstanding CNS’s contrary

24

claims, the Report Card does not

25

indicate that it was meant to only

26

reflect the deterioration of same-

27

day access in the courts

28

surveyed.
- 52 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2

Dated: November 14, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
JONES DAY

3
4
5
6
7
8

By: s/ Robert A. Naeve
Robert A. Naeve
Attorneys for Defendant
MICHAEL PLANET, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COURT
EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF
THE VENTURA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 53 -

Def’s Response to Pltf’s Evidentiary Objections
Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)