Marilley v. McCamman et al

Filing 64

ORDER re 63 Stipulation Concerning the Authenticity of Certain Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/03/2012. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2012)

1
2
3
4

Stuart G. Gross (SBN#251019)
([e-mail])
GROSS LAW
The Embarcadero
Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
t [phone]
f [phone]

5
6

Counsel for Plaintiffs and
Proposed Class

7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

11
12
13

KEVIN MARILLEY; SALVATORE;
PAPETTI; SAVIOR PAPETTI, on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16

v.
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, in his official
capacity,

17
18

Case No. 11-2418 (DMR)
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONCERNING THE
AUTHENTICITY OF CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS AND QUALIFICATION
OF SUCH DOCUMENTS UNDER
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 803
HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS FOR
BUSINESS RECORDS AND PUBLIC
RECORDS AND REPORTS

Defendant.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

______________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING THE AUTHENTICITY OF CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS AND QUALIFICATION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF
EVIDENCE 803 HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS AND PUBLIC RECORDS AND
REPORTS; Case No. 11-2418

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have propounded requests for production of documents upon

1
2

Defendant;

3

WHEREAS, in response, Defendant produced inter alia certain Microsoft Excel

4

spreadsheet files containing information compiled by the California Department of Fish and

5

Game concerning persons who have paid nonresident fees challenged in the instant action;

6

WHEREAS, Defendant assigned such files the following Bates numbers: AG00000,

7

AG000290, AG000291, AG000292, AG000293, AG000294, AG000295, AG000296, and

8

AG000297;
WHEREAS, the documents identified in the immediately preceding whereas clause are

9
10

collectively referred to herein as the “Subject Documents”;

11

WHEREAS, it is Plaintiffs’ position that a foundation for the authenticity of the Subject

12

Documents can be established through testimony by Plaintiffs’ counsel concerning production

13

of the Subject Documents by Defendant and their receipt by Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs’

14

requests for production of documents and that the Subject Documents are admissible, as non-

15

hearsay or otherwise, and/or would be properly considered by the Court in resolving Plaintiffs’

16

motion for class certification to be filed on January 5, 2012, notwithstanding ultimate resolution

17

of questions going to their admissibility into evidence at trial;

18

WHEREAS, however, Plaintiffs wish to avoid any ambiguity and/or uncertainty in this

19

regard and the associated potential for inefficient dispute between the parties created thereby;

20

and

21

WHEREAS, the parties both desire to avoid the expense and inefficiency of conducting

22

a deposition in order to establish the authenticity of the Subject Documents and their

23

qualification as business records and/or public records and reports under Federal Rules of

24

Evidence 803(6) and 803(8), respectively;

25

//

26

//

27

______________________________________________________________________________

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY OF CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS AND QUALIFICATION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF
EVIDENCE 803 EXCEPTIONS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS AND PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS;
Case No. 11-2418
1

1
2
3

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to court approval, by and
between the undersigned counsel on behalf of the parties as follows:
1.

Any and all of the Subject Documents, if submitted by either party in connection

4

with motion practice or identified by either party for admission into evidence at trial, are

5

presumed to be authentic under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Pursuant to this Stipulation, it is

6

presumed that any of the Subject Documents so submitted are authentic under Federal Rule of

7

Evidence 901, unless a party makes an affirmative showing through timely objection that the

8

submitted document is not the actual document produced. All other objections based on

9

authenticity with respect to the Subject Documents are waived.

10

2.

Any and all of the Subject Documents, if submitted by either party in connection

11

with motion practice or identified by either party for admission into evidence at trial, qualify as

12

business records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) and as public records under Federal

13

Rule of Evidence 803(8), without any further showing .

14
15
16

Dated: December 28, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
GROSS LAW

17
18
19
20

/s/ Stuart G. Gross
STUART G. GROSS
Counsel for Plaintiffs and
Proposed Class

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

______________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY OF CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS AND QUALIFICATION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF
EVIDENCE 803 EXCEPTIONS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS AND PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS;
Case No. 11-2418
2

1
2

Dated: December 28, 2011

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General

3
4
5

7

/s/ Cecilia L. Dennis
CECILIA L. DENNIS
Deputy Attorney General

8

Attorneys for Defendant

9

16

S

FO

LI

ER

H

15

RT

14

___________________________________
. Ryu
onna M
MAGISTRATEdge D
Ju JUDGE DONNA RYU

NO

13

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

A

12

Dated: January 3, 2012

UNIT
ED

11

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED,

RT
U
O

10

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

6

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

______________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY OF CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS AND QUALIFICATION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF
EVIDENCE 803 EXCEPTIONS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS AND PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS;
Case No. 11-2418
3

1

ATTESTATION REGARDING SIGNATURES

2

Pursuant to this Court’s General Order 45, section X(B), I hereby attest that I have

3

obtained concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation and Proposed Order from each of the other

4

signatories.

5
6

Dated: December 28, 2011

GROSS LAW

7
8

/s/ Stuart G. Gross
Stuart G. Gross

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

______________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY OF CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS AND QUALIFICATION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF
EVIDENCE 803 EXCEPTIONS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS AND PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS;
Case No. 11-2418
4