Greenlaw v. Acosta

Filing 182

ORDER re Michelle Daniels Deposition Testimony. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 3/11/2025. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

ROSEMARY GREENLAW,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 18-cv-04932-VKD
ORDER RE MICHELLE DANIELS
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

v.
VINCENT N. MICONE,
Defendant.

13
14

The Secretary intends to call Michelle Daniels as a witness at trial through Ms. Daniels’s

15

deposition testimony. Ms. Greenlaw objects to the Secretary’s designations of Ms. Daniels’s

16

testimony on foundation, hearsay, and relevance grounds. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, 602, 802.

17

With respect to Ms. Daniels’s testimony about statements security guard(s) made to her, the

18

Secretary argues that Court should provide the jury with a limiting instruction that such testimony

19

is not being offered for the truth of those statements, but to establish Ms. Daniels’s notice of

20

certain matters. With respect to other designated portions of Ms. Daniels’s testimony, the

21

Secretary argues that such testimony is relevant to explain Ms. Daniels’s actions. Having

22

reviewed the disputed portions of Ms. Daniels’s deposition testimony, the Court rules as follows:

23

Daniels Dep. at 20:14-21:5: Ms. Greenlaw’s objections to the testimony at 20:14-18 and

24

20:25-21:5 are overruled, as Ms. Daniels has personal knowledge of some aspects of the incident

25

in question. Ms. Greenlaw’s objections to the testimony at 20:19-24 are sustained. Fed. R. Evid.

26

602, 802. The statements are hearsay and appear to be offered for the truth of the matters asserted;

27

there is no indication that Ms. Daniels’s having “notice” of the matters described in the statements

28

is relevant to any issue in the case.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Daniels Dep. at 22:1-6, 25:22-24, 26:3-10, 15; 39:23-40:6, 40:16-18, 21-23: Ms.

2

Greenlaw’s objections to this testimony are sustained. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 802. The statements are

3

hearsay and appear to be offered for the truth of the matters asserted; there is no indication that

4

Ms. Daniels’s having “notice” of the matters described in the statements is relevant to any issue in

5

the case.

6

Daniels Dep. at 50:12-51:15 and 51:25-53:13: Ms. Greenlaw’s objections to this

7

testimony are overruled. Ms. Greenlaw has tried to minimize the significance of leaving the cart

8

with items to be donated where it was. Accordingly, this portion of Ms. Daniels’s testimony is

9

relevant and admissible to explain why this incident was significant, and it appears to be based on

10

Ms. Daniels’s personal knowledge.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: March 11, 2025

13
14
Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2