Evidence

In this case, defendant avoided summary judgment by submitting a declaration from a non-party witness which said she knew facts undermining the defendant's going and coming rule defense.  After summary judgment was denied on that basis, defendant took the witness' deposition at which she disclaimed any personal knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration which she said she signed… Read More

Explaining the California Supreme Court's relatively recent decisions dealing with the admissibility of expert testimony based on hearsay sources, this opinion explains that expert opinion is properly admissible if based on hearsay about background facts or principles of science and the like.  (See People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665; People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16; People v. Valencia… Read More

Under the federal recalcitrant witness statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), when a witness refuses to testify or provide other information, including documentary evidence, the court “may summarily order his confinement . . . until such time as the witness is willing to give such testimony or provide such information.”  This decision holds that section 1826 applies to post-judgment as well… Read More

This decision affirms a judgment against Monsanto for failing to warn of the toxic nature of Roundup.  It holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136 et seq.) does not preempt state common law duty to warn and defective design products liability claims.  There was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of liability on those… Read More

The D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1 doctrine about summary judgment affidavits not being allowed to contradict admissions in discovery is not a doctrine regarding the admissibility of evidence, but rather whether the contradictory evidence can be given an weight.  Here, an expert changed his answer on the key question of whether a plaintiff was exposed… Read More

It is misconduct for counsel to argue to the jury that there is no evidence on an issue when he knows that such evidence exists but was excluded at his request.  Here counsel exacerbated that misconduct by telling the jury that the court's admonition to ignore the arresting officer's statement about defendnat's intoxication showed the testimony was nothing but a… Read More

Statistical evidence is admissible to establish predominance under FRCivP 23(b)(3) if that evidence would be admissible in an individual action on the same claim, the statistical evidence is linked to the plaintiffs' theory of liability and the use of averaging assumptions does not conceal the variations that otherwise would defeat class certification.  Here, plaintiffs' statistical evidence satisfied those three tests. … Read More

F.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) provides that a party that fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by F.R.Civ.P. 26(a) or (e) is barred from using the undisclosed evidence or witness unless the district court finds the failure substantially justified or finds a different sanction more appropriate.  To invoke the court's power under this provision, the offending party must move… Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in excluding an expert's opinion as to lost profits in ruling on a summary judgment motion.  While most of his opinion was speculative, one part dealt with lost profits using a before-and-after method based on 16 months of actual profits earned before the allegedly harmful event.  The before-and-after method is an approved way to… Read More

Under the Stored Communications Act (18 USC 2701, 2707) creates a private right of action against a person who intentionally accesses, without authorization, an electronic communication system, thereby obtaining an electronic communication in the system's electronic storage.  For this purpose, electronic storage includes storage by the system for the purpose of backup.  This decision holds that wife raised triable issues,… Read More

Three conclusions reached in a Police Foundation report of the incident in which plaintiff was injured shoulld have been admitted into evidence under the adoptive admission exception to the hearsay rule.  (Evid. Code 1221, 1222.)  The police chief had stated at a press conference that he adopted the report's conclusions as true.  And, the police chief was authorized to make… Read More

This decision outlines the seven factors a trial court should consider in deciding a third party's motion to quash a subpoena served on it by a criminal defendant.  Most important of those factors, particularly when the subpoena seeks social media posts, are the defendant's proof of a plausible justification for needing the subpoenaed documents and the consideration of privacy and… Read More

In a groundwater pollution case, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions against the Water District since it had a reasonable basis for denying requests for admission based on evidence the defendant used contaminants on its property and on expert testimony that that release of those chemicals contaminated the groundwater. Read More

Because the transcript showed the City learned nothing significant or prejudicial during a coerced interview by the police and City Attorney, the City Attorney should not have been disqualified. Read More

Defendant’s repeated kicks and punches of the plaintiff was sufficient evidence of malice and/or intent to injure, thus providing sufficient justification for a punitive damages award. Read More

Motions to quash a subpoena on an internet service provider may be pursued even after the subpoena has been withdrawn, since there is no assurance in a voluntary withdrawal that the subpoena will not be reissued later, further harassing the same party for his exercise of free speech rights. Read More

None of the exceptions to hearsay rule applied to permit admission of plaintiff’s supervisor’s testimony that he had seen defendant’s name on invoices and shipping orders for asbestos-containing pipes. Read More

Extrinsic evidence of trustor’s intent is admissible to shed light on the applicability of the “impossibility limitation” on conditions precedent to dispositions by will or trust. Read More

Defendant-employer was not vicariously liable for an after-work car accident which the defendant’s employee caused while on the phone with another employee, as the call related to personal matters, not work. Read More

The trial court did not err in excluding a non-retained expert’s opinion on causation as it duplicated a retained expert’s more soundly based opinion. Read More