Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 21TRCV00370, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00370, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00370 Hearing Date: November 17, 2023 Dept: 8

M Cool dba Indiemodal Trucking vs Lever Logistics, 21TRCV00370 Motions in Limine for Trial


MIL No.	Subject of Motion	Tentative	Brief Discussion

� Lever-1	To exclude loss of business damages	Grant	Opposition notes Compl alleged consequential damages flowing from claimed breach of contract, and that response to interrogatory 9.1 asserted loss of business because other clients requested that Plaintiff pick up cargo from COSCO and Hyundai but could not because Plaintiff was locked out by Defendants' failure to pay detention charges. However, the Answer to Rog 9.1(c) quantifies the detention charges as being included in the statement of Account, presumably the $368k figure repeatedly alleged in the Complaint as the amount of Plaintiff's damages. No other figure is given in response to the interrogatory
� Lever-2	To preclude damages that "were not accrued" prior to the FAC	Argue	Both sides fail to address what specific evidence is sought be excluded, or what specific evidence is sought to be offered, that is the subject of this motion. No dollar amount, no invoice, no exhibit, no testimony is specified by either party. See Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 CA4th 659, 670. Are there any amounts claimed in the trial exhibits that post-date the filing of the FAC?
� Lever-3	To exclude compilation or sumary exhibits 37 to 49	Argue	Summaries of voluminous business records are admissible provided a witness can testify at trial to the method of preparation, accuracy of the process, and the underlying documents used are made available to the opposing party for audit and impeachment purposes. See Vanguard Recording Society v Fantasy Records (1972) 24 CA3d 410, 418-19, decided under now-repealed Ev. Code � 1509. Section 1509 was replaced by the Secondary Evidence Rule in Sections 1520 et seq. Ev. Code � 1521 makes summaries or other secondary evidence admissible, unless there is a genuine dispute concerning the material terms of the secondary writing and justice requires their exclusion. YDM Mgmt. Co, Inc. v Sharp Community Med Group (2017) 16 CA5th 613, 631. Here, the Court itself suggested a summary of voluminous records would serve the interests of justice and make the trial more streamlined. A paralegal or clerk or even associate of trial counsel could testify to the preparation of the summary if the client lacks foundation to do so. The Court would consider a short trial postponement to allow the deposition of the person who actually prepared the summaries so defense counsel could determine the summaries'' accuracy.