(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident/insurance coverage case and its proceedings.)
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS AND DEFENDANT’S SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ARE IMPROPER AND OBJECTIONABLE ON NUMEROUS GROUNDS AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
As plaintiffs demonstrate in their separately filed objections to defendant’s evidence offered in support of defendant’s undisputed facts, much of defendant’s evidence is objectionable hearsay or is offered without foundation, or without a showing of personal knowledge, or violates the best evidence rule. The evidentiary items to which plaintiffs object should be stricken on the grounds stated for each item. Defendant’s motion cannot succeed with the paltry unobjectionable evidence that remains, evidence which supports only the most basic notions about the nature of the case. The court should deny defendant’s motion because it is not supported by competent evidence.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO IDENTIFY, WITH PARTICULARITY, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EACH ISSUE DEFENDANT WISHES TO HAVE ADJUDICATED IN ITS FAVOR.
Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of issues (Motion at page 34) fails to
identify with any particularity the evidence upon which defendant relies for each of the four issues it desires to have adjudicated in its favor. Rather, for each issue, defendant mechanically incorporates by reference Undisputed Material Facts Nos. 1 through 104 as if fully set forth herein. The rules (not to mention fundamental due process considerations) require that a defendant seeking summary adjudication separately identify each claim, cause of action, affirmative defense or issue of duty and each supporting material fact with respect to said claim, cause of action, affirmative defense or issue of duty in a two column format with citations to exhibits, titles, page numbers and line numbers. See California Rules of Court, rules 3.150(C),(d). Defendant has done none of this.
Among other things, defendant has not provided a two column format and has failed to identify with any particularity the evidence upon which it relies. Incorporating all evidence it has previously cited in support of its 104 summary judgment issues does not comply with the spirit or the letter of the rule. Plaintiffs cannot be expected to go back through the supporting evidence which defendant has cited for each of its 104 previous issues and pick and guess (at plaintiffs’ peril) the evidence plaintiffs believe defendant is really relying upon. Furthermore, the burdensome and time-consuming nature of such an undertaking would be prohibitive, as would the voluminous document of opposing evidence which plaintiffs would be required to produce in response. Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication should be denied for this reason alone.
(See Part 8 of 11.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.