Local 1000's Objections to Sherles Evidence

8/13/2019 Local 1000's Objections to Sherles Evidence

1/28

ORIGf fA'

T3OO)ceg

EoomS


2/28

T5Ok.O)creEa>oore'Bo.cuco2 =

O

= 1c ._ u5 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

26

27

28

Defendants Sen/ ice Employees Internat ional Union Local 1000 ("Local 1000") , Rich

Boyd ("Boyd") and Ma ria Pat terson ("Pat terson") (col lect ively "Defen dan ts") hereby obje ct to

the fol lowing evidence submit ted by Plaint i ffs in opposi t ion to Defendants ' motion for summary

judgment or, in the al ternat ive, for summary adjudicat ion of issues as fol lows:

1 . D E C L A R AT I O N O F N IL ES H C H O U D H A R Y

Plaintiff 's Evidence

The ent i re Declarat ion ofNilesh Choudhary isinadmissible .

(page 1, l ines 22 -2 4)

Paragraph 2

(page 2, lines -3)

Paragraph 3

(page 2, lines 4-8)

D e f e n d a n t ' s O b j e c t i o n

The Declaration fails to assertthat counsel would testifybased on his ow n know ledg eto the al leged facts containedin this de clar at io n. Cu ll inciniV. Vernon (1 975 ) 53 C al .A p p . 3 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 4 . ( Anattorney's declaration isusually insufficient, unlesscounsel is able to showpersonal knowledge of theauthent icat ing facts . )

The testimony therefore lacksfounda t ion and i sinadmissible hearsay.

Hearsay. Ca l . Evid. C o d esect ion 1200. Fai lure toau then t ica te docu me nt . C a l .Evid. C o d e s e c t i o n 1 4 0 0 -1 4 0 1 .

The declarant has fai led totestify that the attacheddoc um ent is a t rue, correcta n d / o r c o m p l e t e c o p y

Hearsay. Ca l . Evid. C o d esect ion 1200. Fai lure toau then t ica te docum ent . Ca l .Evid. C o d e se c ti o n 1 4 0 0 -1 4 0 1 .

Court 's Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

{1691139.DOC;} Defs' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence re MSJ/MSA


3/28


4/28

ao

creEaou

re'-aoJ :ucn

= 15 I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONFIDENTIAL DEC LARATION O F NILESH C H O U D H ARY

Plaintiff's Evidence

The entire ConfidentialDeclaration of NileshChoudhary is inadmissible.

(page 1, lines 22-25)

Paragraph 2

(page 2, lines 2-4), (Exhibit 1)

"It references the depressionthat Plaintiff was sufferingfrom as a result of the sexual

harassment incident involvingRichard Boyd and time takenoff as a result andprescriptions provided as aresult."

Paragraph 2

(page 2, lines -4)

Defendant's Objection

The Declaration fails to assertthat counsel would testifybased on his own knowledgeof the alleged facts containedin this declaration. CullinciniV. Vernon (1975 ) 53 Ca l.App. 3d 90 8, 91 4. (Anattorney's declaration isusually insufficient, unlesscounsel is able to showpersonal knowledge of theauthenticating facts.)

The testtmony therefore lacksfoundation and isinadmissible hearsay.

Inadmissible unsupportedopinion of declarant. HooverV. Thomson (1985)167 Cal.App. 3d 1130, 1136-37(Opinions standing alone areinsufficient and "cannot riseto the dignity of substantialevidence.").

Nothing in "Exhibit 1"expresses or supports thedeclarant's opinion in thisparagraph. Furthermore, tothe extent that the declarant isinterpreting medical records,the declarant seeks to offerunq ualified expert testimony.

Failure to authenticatedocument. Cal. Evid. Codesection 1400-1401 .

The declarant has failed totestify that the attached

Court's Ruling

Sustained:

Overruled:

Sustained:

Overruled:

Sustained:

Overruled:



5/28

T5Ok_O)cre

oou

re'ua.cu

X I

2 =o

1S J2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Paragraph 2

(page 2, lines -4)

Paragraph 2

(page 2, lines 1-4) (Exhibit 1)

Paragraph 3


" . . . a t t ached to th i sdeclarat ion are physicaltherapy, prescr ipt ions, andrelated t reatment records forthe 'body s lam' that Plaint i ff[sic] from Sophia Perkins."

Defendant 's Object ion

document is a t rue, correcta n d / o r c o m p l e t e c o p y.

Hearsay, Ca l . Evid. C o d e

sec t ion 1200 .

The declarant offers noevidence regarding how thesedocuments were main ta ined .

Relevance , Ca l . Evid. C o d esec t ions 210 , 350 .

The declarat ion contains noevidence establ ishing anyconnec t ion be tween anal leged "sexual harassmentincident" and the at tachedrecords. The declaranttherefore offers no admissibleevidence to establish how thisal leged "fact" has anytendency in reason to proveor disprove any fact that is ofconsequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.

Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Hoov erV. Thomson (19 85 )16 7 Ca l .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7(Opinions s tanding alone areinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .

Nothing in "Exhibi t 2"expresses or supports thedeclarant 's opinion in thisparagraph . Fur thermore , tothe extent that the declarant isinterpret ing medical records,the declarant seeks to offerunqual if ied expert tes t imony.

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

{1691 139.DOC;} Defs' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence re MSJ/MSA


6/28

aoO)creE0)oure

T3(Uuc5

2 =o

^12 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Paragraph 3


Paragraph 3


Paragraph 3


Paragraph 4

(page 2, l ines 10-12)

" . . . a t t ached to the dec la ra t ionare Plaintiff 'sphys io log ica l /psych ia t r icrecords relating to incidents ofthe interview by Paul Harris,'body s lam' incident involvingSophia Perkins, and sexualharassment incident involving


Fai lure to authent icated o c u m e n t . C a l . Evid. C o d esect ion 1 4 0 0 - 1 4 0 1 .

The declarant has fai led totestify that the attacheddocument is a t rue, correcta n d / o r c o m p l e t e c o p y.

Hearsay, Ca l .sec t ion 1200 .

Evid. Code

The declarant has offered noevidence regarding how thesedocuments were main ta ined .

Relevance , Ca l . Evid. C o d esec t ion 350 .

The declarat ion contains noevidence establ ishing anyconnec t ion be tween ana l leged "body s lam" or any"sexual harassment" and theat tached records. The

declarant therefore offers noadmissible evidence toestablish how this alleged"fact" has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is ofconsequence to the ac t ion .

Inadmissible unsupportedopin io n of dec la ran t . Hoo verV. Thomson (1 98 5) 16 7 Ca l .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 1 1 3 6 - 3 7(Opin ions s tand ing a lone a reinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .

Nothing in "Exhibi t 3"expresses or supports the

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

{1691 139.DOC;} Defs' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence re MSJ/MSA


7/28

T3Oa tcreEooo

jreBo

Slu

. Q

2 =o

=1c 2 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff's Evidence Defendant 's Object ion Cour t ' s Ruling

Richard Boy d. Plaintiff 'sdiagnosis of post- t raumaticstress disorder/depression,related t reatment , and

prescr ipt ions are included inthis records."

declarant 's opinion in thisparagraph that the recordsrelate in any way to a "bodys l a m , " harassment , or an

interview with Paul Harris.Furthermore, to the extent thatthe declarant is interpretingmedical records, thedeclarant seeks to offerunqual if ied expert tes t imony.

Paragraph 4


Fai lure to authent icated o c u m e n t . C a l . Evid. C o d esect ion 1 4 0 0 - 1 4 0 1 . Thedeclarant has failed to testify

that the at tached document isa t rue , cor rec t and /orcomple te copy.

Sustained:aragraph 4




O v e r r u l e d :

Paragraph 4




Paragraph 4


Hearsay, Ca l . Evid. C o d esec t ion 1200 .






O v e r r u l e d :

Paragraph 4




Paragraph 4

(page 2 , lines 8-12)

Relevance , Ca l . Evid. C o d esec t ion 35 0 . The dec la ra t ioncontains no evidenceestabl ishing any connect ionbetween an al leged "bodys l a m " or any "sexualharassment" and the at tachedrecords. The declaranttherefore offers no admissibleevidence to establish how this

al leged "fact" has anytendency in reason to proveor disprove any fact that is ofconsequence to the act ion.





O v e r r u l e d :

Paragraph 4






8/28

T JO

CreE.2oum'uo.cu

J2

2 co

= 12 I.Is2 s

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

21

2 2

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION O F ROBYN SHERLES'


The entire Declaration ofRobyn Sherles is inadmissible.

Paragraph 3

"...she sustained physical andemotional injuries..."

Defendant's Objection

Hearsay, Cal. Evid. Codesection 1200.

This declaration contains notestimony stating that it ismade based on thedeclarant's personalknowledge.

Hearsay, Cal. Evid. Codesection 1200. According toPlaintiff's cou nsel, who has

attached this declaration asan exhibit his own, theoriginal signature of RobynSherles is unavailablebecause the witness is inSouthern Ca lifornia . Awitness' presence in anotherlocation, especially where thatlocation is within the samestate does not support-Plaintiff's assertion that the

witness is unavailable.

Inadmissible unsupportedopinion of declarant, lacksfound ation. Hoover v.Thomson (1985)167 Cal.App. 3d 1130, 1136-37(Opinions standing alone areinsufficient and "cannot nseto the dignity of substantialevidence.").

Court's Ruling

Sustained:

Overruled:

Sustained:

Overruled:

' This dec lara t ion was not subm it ted in supp or t of Pla in t i ffs ' O pp os i t i on . I t i s ins tead a t tache d only to theSupp lemen ta l Dec l a r a t i on o f N i l e sh Choudha ry, who admi t s t ha t t he dec l a r an t was unava i l ab l e t o p rov ide he ro r ig ina l s i gna tu re . By submi t t i ng t he se ob j ec t i ons SEIU does concede t ha t t h is dec l a r a t i on s hou ld be cons ide re dby the cour t . SEIU only provides these object ions to avoid waiving them should the cour t conclude that i t canconsider i t s contents .

{1691139.DOC;} 8 Defs' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence re MSJ/MSA


9/28

T3O

creE0)ou

reS0).cucQ

2 =o

=

2 I.ES2 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff's Evidence Defendant 's Object ion

The declarant states only herunfounded op in ion tha tMechel le Sherles sustainedphys ica l and emot iona l

injuries. No facts are offeredto support this opinion,addi t ional ly, to the extent thatthe declarant is making adeterminat ion as to anymedica l condi t ion thedec larant is offer ing anunqua l i f i ed exper t op in ion .

Cour t ' s Ruling

5 . D E C L A R AT I O N O F J A M E S B R I G G S


The ent i re Declarat ion ofJames Briggs is inadmissible .

Paragraph 4

(ent i re paragraph)


Hearsay, Ca l . Evid. C o d esect ion 1200, lacksf o u n d a t i o n .

This declarat ion contains notestimony stating that it ismade based on the

declarant 's personalk n o w l e d g e .

Averments in a declarat ionmust state that the factsal leged are within thepersonal knowledge of theaffiant (and thus not hearsay),and that the affiant can testifycompetent ly thereto. House v.Lata , ( 1 9 6 0 ) 1 8 0 C a l . A p p .2 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 6 .


The decla rant 's interact ions

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



10/28

aok_O)creEoou

JCre

T3(l>ucn2 =

o

= 12 a.1 82 *

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

26

27

28


Paragraph 5


"I bel ieve I was rem oved fromthis posi t ion for making ac o m p l a i n t a b o u t a m e m b e r o fthe Union who was asupporter of the Unionadministrat ion. . . i t is myop inio n this is wh at hap pen edto me."

Paragraph 5


"I bel ieve I was rem oved fromthis posi t ion for making acompla in t about a member o fthe Union who was asupporter of the Unionadministrat ion. . . i t is myop inio n this is wh at hap pen edto me."


with the "LavenderC o m m i t t e e " h a v e n oconnect ion with the eventsalleged by Plaintiffs in thiscase , nor does the declaranteven at tempt to establ ish sucha conn ec t ion . Acco rd ing ly,the declarant has offered noadmissible evidence toestablish how this alleged"fact" has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is ofconsequence to the act ion.

Inadmissible unsupportedopinion of declarant , lacksfoun da t io n . Hoo ver v.T h o m s o n ( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C a l .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7(Opin ions s tand ing a lone a reinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .

The declarant states only hissubjective belief andspecula t ion regard ing thereason(s) why he wasremoved from his posi t ion onthe "Lavender Commit tee . "


The declar ant 's pu rportedexperience with the Union hasno connect ion with the eventsalleged by Plaintiffs in thiscase, nor does the declaranteven attempt to establish sucha conn ec t ion . Acco rd ing ly,the declarant has offered no

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



11/28

T3O

creEaou

TO

u

.a

= 12 Ic

2 s

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff's Evidence Defendant's Objection Court's Ruling

admissible evidence toestablish how this alleged"fact" has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is ofconsequence to the action.

6. D E C L A R AT I O N O F SUSY DELLA C A S A - M I L L S


The entire Declaration of SusyDelia Casa-Mil ls is

inadmissible .(page 1 , l ines 21 -2 3)

Paragraph 3

(page 2, line 3-7)

"Dur ing my t ime work ing wi thPaul Harris he madestatements to me suchas . . . ' gay people make mesick to my stomach, and whatis worse is inter-racial, gaycouples . ' These commentswere directed toward the


Hearsay, l acks founda t ion ,Cal . Evid. Code sec t ion

1 2 0 0 .

Averm ents in a de clara t ionmust state that the factsal leged are within thepersonal knowledge of theaffiant (and thus not hearsay),and that the affiant can testifycompetent ly thereto. House v.L o la , ( 1 9 6 0 ) 1 8 0 C a l . A p p .2 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 6 .

This declarat ion contains notestimony stating that it ismade based on thedeclarant 's personalk n o w l e d g e .


Statements al legedly made byMr. Harris represents tatements that were made"other than by a witness whiletestifying at the hearing andthat [are] offered to prove thetruth of the matter s ta ted."The statements therefore are

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

{1691139.DOC;} 1 1 Defs' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence re MSJ/MSA


12/28

T3O

creaoo

JCr eX3

Ocn2 c o

= 12 I

2 s

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28


relat ionship that Mechel leSherles had with RobynSherles.

Paragraph 3

(page 2, l ine 3-7)

"Du r ing my t ime work ing w i thPaul Harris he madestatements to me suchas . . . ' gay people make mesick to my stomach, and whatis worse is inter-racial, gaycouples . ' These commentswere directed toward therelat ionship that Mechel le

Sherles had with RobynSherles.

Paragraph 3

(page 2, line 3-7)

"Du r ing my t ime work ing w i thPaul Harris he madestatements to me suchas . . . ' gay people make mesick to my stomach, and whatis worse is inter-racial, gaycouples . ' These commentswere directed toward therelat ionship that Mechel leSherles had with RobynSherles.

Paragraph 4

(pag e 2 , lines 8-1 0)"I am a close friend of RobynSherles and when she andMechelle Sherles filed alawsuit against SEIU Local1000, Mr. Harr is told me thatI could no longer be fr iends

Defendant ' s Objec t ion

inadmissible hearsay.

Inadmissible unsupported

opin io n of dec la ran t . Hoo verV. Thomson (19 85 )1 67 C al .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 1 1 3 6 - 3 7(Opin ions s tand ing a lone a reinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .

The declarant provides noevidence to support hersubject ive opinion that thestatements al legedly made byMr. Harris were related in anyway to Mec he l le a nd /o rRobyn Sherles.

Re levance , Ca l . Evid. C o d es e c t i o n 2 1 0 , 3 5 0 .

The declarant offers noadmissible evidence toestablish how this alleged

statement has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is ofconsequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.

Hearsay, Ca l . Evid. C o d esec t ion 1200 .Statements al legedly made byMr. Harris at best represents tatements that were made"other than by a witness whiletestifying at the hearing andthat [are] offered to prove thetruth of the matter s ta ted."

Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

{1691 139.DOC;} 12 Defs' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence re MSJ/MSA


13/28

cT3

CT)Cre

oou

JC

reTJo.cuc

l a

2 =o=1

S lE S2 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


with Robyn Sherles."

Paragraph 4


"I am a close friend of RobynSherles and when she andMechel le Sherles f i led alawsuit against SEIU Local1 0 0 0 , Mr. Harr is told me thatI could no longer be fnendswith Robyn Sherles."

Paragraph 5


"He further made thecomment , which was in thecontext of me wearing a shorts leeve top, that the fol lowingare things that he hares: 1)Women hav ing exposed brastraps; 2) gay people; 3) fatpe op le; and 4) ta t toos. Ibelieve that Mr. Harris is

b iased aga ins t women, andthese statements illustratetha t . "

Paragraph 5


"He further made thecomment , which was in thecontext of me wearing a shorts leeve top, that the fol lowingare things that he hares: 1)Women hav ing exposed brastraps; 2) gay people; 3) fatpe opl e; and 4) ta t toos. Ibelieve that Mr. Harris isb iased aga ins t women, andthese statements illustratethat."


The s tatements therefore areinadmissible hearsay.

Relevance , Ca l . Evid. C o d e

s e c t i o n 2 1 0 , 3 5 0 .The declarant offers noadmissible evidence toestabl ish how this a l legedstatement has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is ofconsequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.


sect ion 200. Statementsal legedly m ade by M r. Harr isat best represent statementsthat were made "other thanby a witness while testifying atthe hearing and that [are]offered to prove the truth ofthe matter s ta te d." Thestatements therefore areinadmissible hearsay.

Relevance , Ca l . Evid. C o d es e c t i o n 2 1 0 , 3 5 0 .

The declarant offers noadmissible evidence toestablish how this allegedstatement has any tendency inreason to prove or disprove

any fact that is ofconsequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.

Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



14/28

T3O

creE0)ou

JC

reTJ0).cuc5

2 co=1

S loo2 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28


Paragraph 5

(page 2, l ine 13-14)

"I believe that Mr. Harris isb iased aga ins t women, andthese statements illustratetha t . "

Paragraph 5

(page 2, l ine 13-14)

"I believe that Mr. Harris isb iased aga ins t women, andthese statements illustratethat ."

Paragraph 6


"I recall Paul Harris speakingof a meeting that BrianSchroederand Paul Har r i shad with Mechelle Sherles inBrian Schroeder 's off iceshortly offer she made a

compla in t regard ing RichardBoyd. It was within a day orso of the meet ing when Harr istold me that it had lasted along t ime, and that they 'keptMechelle Sherles in Brian'soff ice much longer than wasnecess ary. ' Paul said . . . ' this


Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Hoo verV. Thomson (19 85 )16 7 C al .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 1 1 3 6 - 3 7(Opin ions s tand ing a lone a reinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .

The declarant provides noadmissible evidence tosupport her subject ive opinionthat Mr. Harr is harbors any"b ias aga ins t women."


The declarant offers noadmissible evidence toestablish how this allegedstatement has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is ofconsequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.

Hearsay, Ca l . Evid. C o d esect ion 12 00 . Statementsal legedly m ade by Mr . Harr isat best represent statementsthat were made "other thanby a witness while testifying atthe hearing and that [are]offered to prove the truth ofthe matter s ta te d." Thestatements therefore areinadmissible hearsay.

Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



15/28

ao

creEoou

JCre

T>oszu

J3

2 =o

^12 s

1

2

3


8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was a meet ing she wouldremember for the rest of herl i fe , ' and then he chuckled ."

Paragraph 6


"I recall Paul Harris speakingof a meet ing that BnanSchroeder and Paul Harr ishad with Mechel le Sherles inBrian Schroeder 's off iceshortly offer she made acompla in t regard ing RichardBoyd. It was within a day o rso of the meet ing when Harr istold me that it had lasted along t ime, and that they 'keptMechelle Sherles in Brian'soff ice much longer than wasneces sary. ' Paul said . . . ' thiswas a meet ing she wouldremember for the rest of herl i fe , ' and then he chuckled ."

Paragraph 7


"It was my experience withHorns that he would use hisauthori ty and posi t ion to t ryand in t imida te people . Hedid this to me on manyoccasions as we l l . Wo r k i n gfor Paul Harris made me feel

l ike a 'puppet ' instead of ava lued employee , andbecau se I was in fear of los ingmy j ob , I did as I was to ld . "



The declarant offers noadmissible evidence toestablish how this allegedstatement has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is ofconsequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.

Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Hoov erV. Thomson (19 85 )16 7 Ca l .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7(Opin ions s tand ing a lone a reinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .The declarant provides noevidence to support her

subject ive feel ings regardingworking with Mr. Harr is

Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



16/28

T3O

creEou

JCre

T301u

JD

2 =o

= 12 I.E S2 s5 JS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8


Paragraph 7


"I t was my experience withHarris that he would use hisauthori ty and posi t ion to t ryand in t imida te peop le . Hedid this to me on manyoccasions as we l l . Wo r k i n gfor Paul Harris made me feell ike a 'puppet ' instead of ava lued employee , andbeca use I was in fear of los ingmy jo b, I did as I was t o l d . "



The declarant offers noadmissible evidence to

establish how this allegedstatement has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is ofconsequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.

The declarant 's subject iveopin ions about work ing wi thMr. Harr is are unrelated toany events al leged to havetaken place between Mr.Horns and Plaint i ff Mechel leSherles.

Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

D E C L A R AT I O N O F ELLEN C L E M E N T E


The ent i re Declarat ion of El len

Clemente is inadmissible .

(page 1, lines 21 -24)



sec t ion 1200 .This declarat ion contains notestimony stating that it ismade based on thedeclarant 's personalknowledge .

Averments in a declarat ionmust state that the factsal leged are within thepersona l knowledge of theaffiant and thus not hearsay,and that the affiant can testifycompetent ly thereto. House v.Lola , (1960) 180 Cal . App .2 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 6 .

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



17/28

"O

oO )creEoou

JC

reTJa>.cuc52 =

o= 1S l.E 82 55 JS

1

2

3


6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

The ent i re Declarat ion of El lenClemente is inadmissible .

(page 2, lines 6-7)

Paragraph 3

(page 2, lines 4-6) (Exhibit A)

Paragraph 3

(page 2, lines 4-6) (Exhibit A)

Exhibit A

"An FTB EEO officer spoke toPaul Harris. Mr. Harris statesthe incidents involving Mr.Boyd were fully investigated.He found no meri t , but thatMr. Boyd had resigned fromhis position with SEIU andtherefore no fur ther incidents


Lacks fou nda t ion .

C a l . Code of Civ. Proc.Sec t ion 2015 .5 (a ) :This Declarat ion was notmade under penal ty of per juryan d is therefore inadm issible .

Fai lure to authent icated o c u m e n t . C a l . Evid. C o d esect ion 1 4 0 0 - 1 4 0 1 . Thedeclarant does not testify thatthe at tached document is at rue , cor rec t and /or comple tecopy.


The Exhibit merely states anopinion that Richard Boydwas not an employee of theFranchise Tax Board, andexpresses no opinion orstatement relat ing to Mr.Boyd's relationship with SEIU.

The declarant offers noadmissible evidence toestablish h ow Exhibit A hasany tendency in reason toprove or disprove any factthat is of consequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.


The declarant is report ingwhat Harr is a l legedly said toanother FTB EEO off icer andstates no basis for havingpersona l knowledge of thecomments a l l eged ly made .

Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



18/28

TJO1OcreE0)ou

JCTOBo

Slucn

= 12 ac 2 *5 JS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

Plaintiff's Evidence Defendant 's Object ion Cour t ' s Ruling

should be occurnng . Mr.Harris refused to turn over hisinvest igat ion matenal to theFTB" on the basis of hearsay."

Averments in a declarat ionmust state that the factsal leged are within thepersonal knowledge of theaff iant and thus not hearsay,and that the affiant can testifycompetent ly thereto. House v.La la , ( 1 9 6 0 ) 1 8 0 C a l . A p p .2 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 6 .

8 . D E C L A R AT I O N O F M E C H E L L E SHERLES


The ent i re Declarat ion ofMechelle Sherles isinadmissible .

(pag e 1 , lines 21 -25 )

Paragraph 3



Hearsay, l acks founda t ion ,C a l . Evid. Code sec t ion1 2 0 0 .This declarat ion contains notestimony stating that it ismade based on thedeclarant 's personalk n o w l e d g e .

Averments in a declarat ionmust state that the factsal leged are within thepersonal knowledge of theaff iant and thus not hearsay,and that the affiant can testifycompetent ly thereto. House v.La la , (1960) 180 Cal . App .2 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 6 .

Secondary Evidence Rule,

C a l . Evid. Code sec t ion152 3(a ) . This form oftestimony is not admissible toprove the content of a wri t ing.

The declarant seeks to addher personal testimony as to

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



19/28

ao

creE0)ou

JCre

TJ(U

JZu

2 =o

=12 *S JS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

26

27

28


Paragraph 3


"My understanding is thatwhe n I am perfo rm ing SEIUduttes , I am treated as anem ploy ee of SEIU. I bel ieveYvonne Walker ' s s ta tementcompletely contradicts hertestimony in this case

regarding my standing as anemployee of SEIU."

Paragraph 4

(page 3, lines 4-5)

"I treated Boyd as mysupervisor for purposes ofper form ing my Vice Ch a i rDuties [s ic] dunng Bargaining[sic] in 2010."

Paragraph 4

(page 3, lines 4-5)


the contents of a documentwh ich is ava i lable to her an dwhich she has attached to herdec la ra t ion .

Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Ca l .Evid. C o d e s e c t i o n 3 1 0 ;Hoover v. Thomson( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C a l . A p p . 3 d11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7 ( O p i n i o n sstanding alone are insuff icientand "cannot r ise to the digni tyof substant ial evidence.") .

The declarant states only hersub jec t ive op in ion regard ingher relat ionship with SEIU andoffers it as a legal conclusionregarding her relat ionshipwith SEIU.


The declarant offers no

admissible evidence toestablish how this allegedstatement has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is ofconsequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.

Plaintiff 's personal election totreat Boyd as her supervisor isof no consequence , and doesnot properly result in adeterminat ion that Boydactually was her supervisor.

Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Ca l .Evid. C od e sect ion 31 0;

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



20/28

T3Oi

O)creE0)ou

TJUocQ

2 =o

= 12 Ic 2 55 JS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


"I treated Boyd as mysupervisor for purposes ofper forming my Vice Ch a i rDuties [s ic] during Bargaining

[sic] in 2010."

Paragraph 5

(page 3, lines 8-9)

"In July 2010, Boyd asked formy phone number in order tohave access to me in theevent I was neede d for Un iond u t i e s . . . "

Paragraph 5

(page 3, lines 14)

"Boyd was provided a sui te bySEIU."

Paragraph 5


"I t was my understanding thatBoyd was provided a suite


Hoover v. Thomson( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C a l . A p p . 3 d11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7 ( O p i n i o n sstanding alone are insuff icient

and "cannot r ise to the digni tyof substant ial evidence.") .

The declarant states only hersub jec t ive op in ion regard ingBoyd's position at SEIU andoffers it as a legal conclusion.

Lack of foundat ion, lack ofpersonal knowledge and cal lsfor specu la t ion . Ca l . Evid.

Code sec t ion 702(a) .

The declarant states no basisfor her knowledge as to whyBoyd asked for her phonenumber. This would-betestimony further constitutesi m p r o p e r o p i n i o n a n dirrelevant evidence based onspecula t ion , con jec ture andsurmise. (People v. Louie( 1 9 8 4 ) 1 5 8 C a l . A p p . 3 dSupp . 2 8 , 4 7 ; Evid. Code 8 0 0 - 8 0 3 . )

Lack of foundat ion, lack ofpersonal knowledge and cal lsfor specu la t ion . Ca l . Evid.Code sec t ion 702(a) .

The declarant states no basis

for her knowledge that Boydwas provided a suite by SEIU.


Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



21/28

T5OO)creE

_f lou

JC

reTJ0).cu

2 =o

= 12 IE 82 *S JS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28


based on having SEIU agentscome to his suite to discussbargaining during al l t imes asbarga in ing occurs dur ing off -work hours offen late in then igh t and ear ly morn ing ."

Paragraph 5


"SEIU was paying for ourrespective hotel stays and pierdiem."

Paragraph 6

(page 3, lines 21 - 25)

"His body pressed against mybreas t s and upper body. . .Hebeat me to the door andprevented me fro m leaving. Ihad to force him out of theway of the door."


The declarant states no basisfor her kno wled ge as to ho wshe knows that Boyd wasprovided a suite by SEIU andfor what purposes that suitewas prov ided .


The declarant states no basisfor her knowledge as to

whether Boyd was paid by theSEIU for his hotel stay andpier diem.

This test imony contradictsPlaintiff 's depositiontest imony.

Local 1000 objects to thepurported fact that Boydpressed against Plaintiff 'sbreasts and upper body as itcontradicts Defendant 's UDFN o . 74 that "Boyd did nothold her head, shoulders orarms or otherwise touch her,"which was undisputed byPlaintiff. (See also SherlesDe po . , VI . II a t 3 44 :4- 9 . )

Local 1000 fur ther objects to

the purported fact that Boyd"beat her to the door" andshe forced him out of the wayas it contradicts Plaintiff 'sdeposi t ion test imony that shereached the door before Boyddid and that she didn ' tremember how she exi ted the

Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



22/28


TJOL_O)creEou

JCre

TJu

Slu

.a2 c

o

^12 55 JS

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paragraph 7

(page 4, lines 8-9)

"These text messages furtherillustrated his intentions and hiscontinued aggression despitePlaintiff's lack of consent."

Paragraph 9

(page 5, lines -2)

"Mr. Schroader conducted an

initial interview forapprox imately one hour "


r o o m . (See Sherles D ep o. , VI.II a t 3 3 0 : 2 3 - 2 5 a n d 3 3 4 : 4 -3 3 5 : 2 2 . )

A party seeking summaryjudgment cannot o ffe r adeclarat ion that contradictsthe party 's deposi t iontestimony. (Visueta v. GeneralM o t o r s C o r p . ( 1 9 9 1 ) 2 3 4C a l . A p p . 3 d 1 6 0 9 , 1 6 1 3 ; s eealso D Amico v. Bd . O f M ed ' lExaminers (1974) 1 C a l . 3 d1,22.)

Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Ca l .Evid. C o d e s e c t i o n 3 1 0 ;Hoover v. Thomson( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C a l . A p p . 3 d1 1 3 0 , n 3 6 - 3 7 ( O p i n i o n sstanding alone are insuff icientand "cannot nse to the digni tyof substant ial evidence.") .

The declarant states only hersubject ive opinion andcharacter izat ion of the textmessages as illustratingBoyd's intent ions and/oraggress ion .


Plaintiff indicated in herdeposi t ion she did not knowhow long it lasted. (SeeSherles Depo. , VI. I I a t 236:8-15.)

A party seeking summaryjudgment cannot o ffe r a

Cour t ' s Ruling



23/28

TJO

creEaou

JCTOBa>.cucn2 =

o=1S l.E 82 *5 JS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaint iff 's Evidence De fenda nt 's O bje ct i on Co urt ' s Ruling

declarat ion that contradictsthe party 's deposi t iontestimony. (Visueta v. GeneralM o t o r s C o r p . ( 1 9 9 1 ) 2 3 4

C a l . A p p . 3 d 1 6 0 9 , 1 6 1 3 ; s eealso D Amico v. Bd . O f M ed ' lExaminers (1974) C a l . 3 d1,22.)

Paragraph 9

(page 5, l ine 25 throughpage 6, line 1)

" M r. S c h r o a d e r. . . w a ssympathet ic and s tated that

Mr. Boyd as [s ic] a 'predator."Thereafter spoke withYvonne Walker regard ingwhat occurred and she alsodescnbed Mr. Boyd as a" p r e d a t o r. "

Hearsay, Ca l . Evid. C o d esec t ion 1200 .Statements al legedly made byMr. Schroader and Ms.Walker are s tatements thatwere made "other than by awitness while testifying at thehearing and that [are] offeredto prove the truth of thematter s ta ted." This test imonyis inadmissible .






O v e r r u l e d :

Paragraph 9





Paragraph 9

(page 5, lines -2)

"Mr. Schroader. . .wassympathe t ic"

Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Ca l .Evid. Code sec t ion 310;Hoover v. Thomson

( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C a l . A p p . 3 d1 1 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7 ( O p i n i o n sstanding alone are insuff icientand "cannot r ise to the digni tyof substant ial evidence.") .

The declarant states only hersubject ive opinion of thefeel ings, opinions and bel iefsform ed by Mr . S chroaderduring his invest igat ion.


(page 5, lines -2)





O v e r r u l e d :

Paragraph 9

(page 5, lines -2)





Paragraph 0

(page 5, lines 5-1 0)

"This interview lasted over twohours . "


Plaintiff testified at herdeposi t ion that halfway

Sustained:a ragraph 0





O v e r r u l e d :

Paragraph 0







24/28

TJO

creEou

JC

reB(Uc5

2 co

= 1.= 82 *5 JS

1

2

3

4


7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paragraph 3

(page 6, l ines 11-12)"She did this with the intent tocause me distress at a timethat I was already vulne rablebased on Boyd and Harr is 'c o n d u c t . "

Paragraph 13


"She did this with the intent tocause me distress at a timethat I was already vulnera ble


through the meet ing shebegan to compla in tha t sheneeded to use the restroomand approxim ate ly 2 0

minutes elapsed prior to herreaching the restroom door.(See Sherles Depo., VI. IV at68 9:9 -1 9 . ) Based on tha ttest imony, the meet ing couldnot have lasted more thanone hour. A party seekingsummary judgment cannotoffer a declarat ion thatcontradicts the party'sdeposi t ion test imony. (Visueta

V. Ge nera l Motors C orp .( 1 9 9 1 ) 2 3 4 C a l . A p p . 3 d1609 , 1613; see a l soD'A mico V. Bd . O f M ed ' lExaminers (1974) C a l . 3 d1 , 22.) (See Defendant Local

OOO's Evidentiary Objecttonsa t 6 , 11 4 . )

Inadmissible unsupported

opin ion of dec la ran t . Ca l .Evid. C o d e s e c t i o n 3 1 0 ;Hoover v. Thomson( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C a l . A p p . 3 d11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7 ( O p i n i on sstanding alone are insuff icientand "cannot r ise to the digni tyof substant ial evidence.") .

The declarant states only hersubject ive feel ings regarding

M s. Pat terson 's motivat ion.

Lack of foundat ion, lock ofpersonal knowledge and cal lsfor specu la t ion . Ca l . Evid.Code sec t ion 702(a) .

The declarant states no basis

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



25/28


T3Oi _a>cTOEoou

JCTO'5(0

S.u1

2 =o

= 1.E 82 55 JS

2

3

4

5

6

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

based on Boyd and Harr is 'c o n d u c t . "

Paragraph 3


"She did this with the intent tocause me distress at a timethat I was already vulnera blebased on Boyd and Harr is 'c o n d u c t . "

Paragraph 13


"She is known to be a loyalsupporter to theadministrat ion and helping inget t ing Walker re-elected toher off ice."

Paragraph 14


" . . .Defendant Sophia Perk ins ,a fel low elected off icial and apart of the Union that in myopinion tends to sympathizew i th t h e U n i o n . . . "


for her knowledge as to Ms.Pat terson 's motivat ion.

Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Ca l .

Evid. C o d e s e c t i o n 3 1 0 ;Hoover v. Thomson( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C a l . A p p . 3 d11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7 ( O p i n i o n sstanding alone are insuff icientand "ca nn ot r ise to the digni tyof substant ial evidence.") .

The declarant states only hersubject ive feel ings regardingM s . Pat terson 's motivat ion.

Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Hoo verV. T h o m s o n ( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C o l .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7(Opin ions s tand ing a lone a reinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .The declarant provides no

evidence to support herassertion.


Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Hoo verV. T h o m s o n ( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C a l .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 1 1 3 6 - 3 7(Opin ions s tand ing a lone a reinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .The declarant provides noevidence to support her

Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



26/28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10c

o\ 11cTOE 12(Uou 13

JCTO

TJUr 14Uca 152 =

u T

O16

2 a1 801 >

175 JS

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Paragraph 4


"She often refers to herself as" T h e U n i o n T h u g . "

Paragraph 14


"I believe that this act was inre ta l i a t ion for the pos i t ion Itook against the Union inf i l ing the lawsuit ."

Paragraph 15

(page 7, lines 2-3)

"My medical records areat tached at the confident ialdeclarat ion of NileshC h o u d h a r y. "


assertion.


Statements al legedly made byMr. Perkins are statementsthat were made "other thanby a witness while testifying atthe hearing and that [are]offered to prove the truth ofthe matter s ta ted." Thistest imony is inadmissiblebecause it is offered to provethat Ms. Perkins was a " thug"and acted toward Sherles in a

manner that was consis tentwith that label .


Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Hoov er

V. Thomson (1 98 5)1 67 C al .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7(Opin ions s tand ing a lone a reinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .

The declarant provides noevidence to support herassertion.

Fai lure to authent icated o c u m e n t . C a l . Evid. C o d esect ion 1 4 0 0 - 1 4 0 1 .

Neither the declarant nor hercounsel have testified that thereferenced doc um ent is a

Court ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

{1691139. DOC;} 26 Defs' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence re MSJ/MSA


27/28

cTJOk_O)creEoou

J C

re

(USloc'.o2 =

o= 1S l.E 82 *5 JS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Paragraph 16(page 7, lines 4-9)

(ent i re paragraph)

Paragraph 20

(Page 7, lines 7-20)

"The Defendants 'conduc t . . .have kep t me f romat tend ing many Unionfunc t ions . "


t rue , cor rec t and /or comple tecopy, or how i t wasm a i n t a i n e d .

Relevance , Ca l . Evid. C o d esec t ions 210 , 350 .

This paragraph containsconnect ion to any of thealle ge d inciden ts. Plaintiff 'soffers no explanat ion as tohow her subjective feelingsduring an elevator t r ip whichoccurred af ter the eventsabout which she complains is

somehow related to thoseevents , or that SEIU somehoworchestrated a t raumaticelevator r ide.

The declarant therefore offersno admissible evidence toestablish how this alleged"fact" has any tendency inreason to prove or disproveany fact that is of

consequence to thedeterminat ion of this act ion.

Inadmissible unsupportedopin ion of dec la ran t . Hoo verV. T h o m s o n ( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 6 7 C a l .A p p . 3 d 11 3 0 , 11 3 6 - 3 7(Opin ions s tand ing a lone a reinsuff icient and "cannot r iseto the dignity of substantialev idence ." ) .

The declarant does not evenat tempt to ident i fy evidence tosupport her assertion that shewas prevented from at tendingmany Union funct ion s. Shehas ident i f ied nothing thatwould have prevented herfrom at tending such funct ions-

Cour t ' s Ruling

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :

Sustained:

O v e r r u l e d :



28/28

TJO

creE0)ou

JCTOBoSlucn2 c

o= 1S l. 82 *5 JS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Respectfully submitted.

Dated: October 25, 201 3 weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodinLAW CORPORATION

By:CharlesMeagan

Defendants Service Employees InternattonalUnion Local 1000, Rich Boyd and Mono Patterson

Documents

Local 1000's Objections to Sherles Evidence