Motion: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Tentative Ruling:
To grant. To overrule all evidentiary objections. Defendant is directed to submit to this court, within 5 days of service of the minute order, a proposed judgment consistent with the court's summary judgment order.
Explanation:
Evidentiary Objections:
All of plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are overruled. Evidence Code section 623 does not provide a basis for an evidentiary objection; it is merely a rule of law as to the impact of contradictory testimony: namely, a conflicting declaration should be disregarded, not stricken/disallowed. (D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21; Archdale v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 473.) Furthermore, Mr. Casey’s former testimony does not contradict anything he is now saying. The former deposition testimony related to his personal knowledge of specific items of information, and does not contradict his current statement as t
Hearing Date
August 10, 2016
Type
35 Unlimited - Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Motion: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Tentative Ruling:
To grant. To overrule all evidentiary objections. Defendant is directed to submit to this court, within 5 days of service of the minute order, a proposed judgment consistent with the court's summary judgment order.
Explanation:
Evidentiary Objections:
All of plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are overruled. Evidence Code section 623 does not provide a basis for an evidentiary objection; it is merely a rule of law as to the impact of contradictory testimony: namely, a conflicting declaration should be disregarded, not stricken/disallowed. (D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21; Archdale v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 473.) Furthermore, Mr. Casey’s former testimony does not contradict anything he is now saying. The former deposition testimony related to his personal knowledge of specific items of information, and does not contradict his current statement as t