CASE NAME: DECLAN WOODS? vs.? MARY NOLAN
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
FILED BY MARY NOLAN
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
Defendant Mary Nolan?s motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication is denied.? As to statute of limitations, the court finds that the action accrued in March 2011, when Plaintiff was approached by a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle who was breaking a story about Nolan?s use of ?Dirty DUI?s? in divorce cases.? The reporter suggested that Plaintiff might have been one of her victims.? (Plaintiff?s Fact 135 — Undisputed)? Prior to this date, Plaintiff never suspected Louise Woods? attorney in the sting.? (Plaintiff?s Fact 135 — Undisputed)? This evidence is non-hearsay, as it does not go to the truth of the matter asserted but rather to notice to Plaintiff of Nolan?s involvement in the DUI sting.? Plaintiff filed this action less than one year later, on February 27, 2012.? The discovery rule permits the late accrual of these causes of action against Nolan.? See Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806-809.
As to whether there is admissible evidence involving Nolan in the DUI sting, considerable evidence is provided in the summary judgment/summary adjudication of Defendant Louise Woods.? See Facts 5, 6, 21.? In this motion, there is also admissible evidence to this effect, from portions of Tammy Mercado?s and Melissa Yago?s depositions, the declaration of Harold Jewett and Christopher Butler?s testimony from a criminal prosecution of former police officer, Stephen Tanabe in the United States District Court for the Northern District, Case No. CR1109041 CRB.? The court rules on the parties? evidentiary objections as follows:
Declaration of Edward Casey
The objections to the transcript are not in proper form.? See Cal. Rule of Court Rule 3.1354(b).? In any event, they are overruled.
Declaration of Declan Woods
Woods Decl., paragraph 3, lines 20-24:? Overruled
Woods Decl., paragraph 4:? Overruled
Woods Decl., paragraph 5, lines 6-10:? Sustained starting with ?In? and ending with ?Gard? ? hearsay
Plaintiff?s Index of Evidence
Exhibit I? (Deposition of Declan Woods)
Woods Depo. 179:7-182:20:?? Sustained — hearsay
Woods Depo. 184:23-185:6:? Sustained ? hearsay
Woods Depo. 200:17-201:5:? Overruled
Woods Depo. 239:15-24:? Sustained ? mediation privilege
Woods Depo. 192:22-193:25; 198:19-200; 202:6-23; 204:3-23:? Sustained ? hearsay
Index of Exhibits, Exhibit J (Deposition of Bonnie Taylor)
Taylor Depo. 15:13-19:? Overruled
Index of Exhibits, Exhibit N (Deposition of Lauren Gard)
Gard Depo. 91:6-92:23:? Sustained — hearsay
Gard Depo. 93:18-95:21:? Sustained — hearsay
Gard Depo. 99:20-100:14:? Sustained — hearsay
Gard Depo. 104:7-13:? Sustained — hearsay
Gard Depo.? 149:4-10:? Sustained — hearsay
Index of Exhibits, Exhibit A (Deposition of Tammy Mercado)
Mercado Depo. 40:19-24:? Sustained — foundation
Mercado Depo. 57:14-24:? Sustained — foundation
Mercado Depo. 59:9-12:?? Sustained ? speculation
Declaration of Harold Jewett (Exhibit P to Index of Exhibits)
Jewett Decl., paragraph 4:? Overruled
Jewett Decl., paragraph 6:? Overruled
Jewett Decl., paragraph 7:? Overruled
Index of Exhibits, Exhibit Q (Deposition of Christopher Butler)
Butler took the fifth amendment to all questions asked of him at his
deposition.? There is no testimony for which to make a ruling.
Declaration of Edward Haas, Exhibit D (Deposition of Mary Nolan)
Nolan Depo. 7:19-23:? Overruled
Plaintiff?s request for judicial notice is ruled on as follows:? RJN of Exhibits E,
G, H, O, R, S, W and X is granted.? See Evid. Code 452(d).? RJN of Exhibits F and P is
denied.