Robinson v. Open Top Sightseeing San Francisco, LLC

Filing 235

NOTICE RE EXHIBIT 11. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/17/2017. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HAROLD C. ROBINSON, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-00852-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

NOTICE RE EXHIBIT 11

OPEN TOP SIGHTSEEING SAN
FRANCISCO, LLC, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
Because the parties are familiar with the procedural history of this matter, the court

14
15

does not repeat it here.
As relevant, on October 10, 2017, the court conducted a bench trial that was set to

16
17

address defendant’s liability under the Private Attorney General Act, total damages, and

18

whether injunctive relief should issue. During that bench trial, plaintiffs moved to admit

19

an “Exhibit 11”1 into evidence. See Oct. 10, 2017, Tr. at 56:25-57:8. Exhibit 11, as

20

explained by plaintiffs’ counsel, contains “hundreds of electronic payroll records” “that the

21

expert relied upon.” Id. at 57:4-20. Despite plaintiffs admitting that the records were

22

voluminous, at trial, plaintiffs did not provide a summary of Exhibit 11 through a summary

23

witness or otherwise. The parties, however, did stipulate to the authenticity and

24

admissibility of these records, see Dkt. 165 at 4:16-17, see also Oct. 10, 2017, Tr. 59:8-

25

23, and defendant did not object to the expert’s reliance on the exhibit, see Oct. 10, 2017,

26

Tr. 59:18-23.

27
1

28

This exhibit number was provided as part of plaintiffs’ trial exhibit list submission on
August 17, 2017. Dkt. 180.

1
2
3

At trial, the court neither explicitly admitted nor refused to admit Exhibit 11 into
evidence. Id. at 56:25-59:24.
In reviewing the evidence and submissions made in this matter, the court found an

4

electronic copy of Exhibit 11 that plaintiffs lodged with the court on August 17, 2017,

5

pursuant to the Court’s Case Management and Pretrial Order. Dkt. 180.

6

After considering the parties arguments and the evidence admitted at trial, and

7

after having reviewed Exhibit 11, the court is now inclined to admit Exhibit 11 into

8

evidence. As no summary was submitted and no testimony was provided by either of

9

plaintiffs' two witnesses about this exhibit, the court will rely on it only to the extent the
court understands its contents. Much of it makes no sense to the court without a context

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

having been provided, but some of it adds to the court's understanding of the evidence

12

that was presented.

13
14
15

Because the parties have previously stipulated to Exhibit 11’s authenticity and
admissibility, the court sees no prejudice to either party.
Either party may file an objection, no longer than three pages, to the admission of

16

Exhibit 11 into evidence within seven (7) days of this order. The parties’ objections, if

17

any, should not include additional argument about any other subject. Nor is this an

18

invitation for either party to now attempt to summarize the contents of Exhibit 11.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2017
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2