1:10-cv-00491
E.D. Cal.Jul 31, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Ram Nehara challenges a supplemental motion for a new trial or relief from judgment in the Eastern District of California.
- Defendants submitted a declaration from Karen Carnes with Exhibits A and B regarding Nehara's employment and insurance-related information.
- Plaintiff objected to Carnes’ authentication and the relevance/character of various statements in Exhibits A and B.
- Declarations from Russell Till and Andrea Austin accompanied the opposition, with multiple exhibits (A–E) and statements challenged for hearsay, foundation, or authenticity.
- The court conducted a line-by-line evaluation of objections, issuing numerous overrules and sustains, and ultimately admitted some exhibits while excluding others.
- An order followed listing which exhibits and statements are admitted or not admitted, and noting waivers regarding subpoena-related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission and authentication of Exhibit A | Carnes lacked foundation to authenticate A. | Carnes testified true and correct copies; circumstantial familiarity sufficed. | Exhibit A admitted; authentication sufficient. |
| Admission and authentication of Exhibit B | B lacks personal knowledge and relevance. | Carnes’ familiarity and signature support authenticity; circumstantial evidence ties to Plaintiff. | Exhibit B admitted; authenticity and foundation established. |
| Hearsay and admissibility of Till’s newspaper articles and related exhibits | Articles are hearsay and not properly authenticated. | Articles are self-authenticating; some lack proper foundation. | Multiple Till-related items not admitted; some articles authenticated; others sustained for lack of foundation. |
| Relevance of evidence to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion | New information bears on damages and front/back pay. | Only relevant to the underlying motion; not all content is probative. | Certain statements deemed relevant for damages considerations; others excluded for irrelevance or lack of foundation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49 (3d Cir. 1971) (circumstantial evidence may prove connection between source and message)
- Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1963) (connection between a message and its source may be established circumstantially)
- United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) (public records evidence and reliability concerns in hearsay exceptions)
- Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (requirement to address issues Specifically argued; not waived)
- United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991) (courts not required to manufacture arguments for litigants)