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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?