FANTASY COOKIE CORPORATION ET AL VS HAROLD ROTHMAN ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC578882    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 19

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Non-Appearance Case Review Re Long Cause Trial Determination

The Court, after reviewing the submitted Long-Cause Trial binders, makes the following ruling:

While the parties successfully addressed nearly all of the many issues identified in the court’s October 22, 2019 order, they failed to address and correct all of the issues.

The court addresses the remaining issues below.

1. Department 1’s prior order noted the court construed the use of “P/D” in the “Offered by” column to indicate joint exhibits and the parties were directed to stipulate to the authenticity of all joint documents. However, the parties failed to stipulate to the authenticity of Exhibit Nos. 80, 81, 90, 91, 154, 242, 252, and 345A.

2. Column D for Exhibit 440 states “NY” rather than either Y or N.

3. Department 1’s prior order noted the exhibits should be renumbered because the parties should not “reserve” exhibits between offered exhibits. However, defendants designated exhibits 1336 through 1501, totaling nearly eight pages, as “Reserved.”

For these reasons, the request to deem the matter as a Long Cause matter is DENIED without prejudice.

The Long Cause Binders are returned to Department 19 forthwith for counsel to collect and make the necessary changes.

Clerk shall give notice.

Certificate of Mailing is attached.

Case Number: BC578882    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 19

The Long Cause Trial Determination is denied without prejudice. The following items are ordered corrected:

Joint Statement of the Case:

• The parties submitted their “respective proposed statements of the case.” The parties must submit one, agreed upon, joint statement of the case.

Joint Witness List:

• The joint witness list should not contain estimates for re-direct.
• The parties cannot include “TBD” in response to whether a witness is expected to testify. The response must be either Yes or No. (See Witness Nos. 7 and 30.)
• The parties failed to include the sub-total column and the total column is not cumulative, as required. For example, the total hours column for Jeffrey Brandlin, once the re-direct is removed, should be 5.5 hours.

Joint Exhibit List:

• The court understands the parties’ use of P/D in the “offered by” column to indicate all parties intend to offer these exhibits. (Exhibit Nos. 3–446.) However, the parties indicate they have not stipulated to the authenticity of many of these joint exhibits. The parties should stipulate to the authenticity of all joint exhibits. (See e.g. Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 856 (“some of the exhibits Defendants objected to were identical to documents Defendants had submitted . . . The Individual Defendants objected to these exhibits on authentication . . .  Since Defendants had relied on this very same evidence, there was no merit to these objections.”).)
• The parties should not have “reserved” exhibits to start the Exhibit List or between offered exhibits. (See e.g. Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 33, 163–165, 167, et al.)
• The parties failed to complete column D for all exhibits. (See e.g. Exhibit Nos. 398, 399, 404, 405, 407–410.)
• The parties failed to complete column C for all exhibits. (See e.g. Exhibit Nos. 554-557.)
• The parties should be consistent in their exhibit identification. For example, Exhibit Nos. 735–776 are italicized and Exhibit Nos. 767–776 lack specific descriptions, merely stating “Text Messages.”
• Exhibit 1053 is incomplete, stating “Bates stamp ???”
• The parties should not repeat exhibits, (See e.g. Exhibit No. 1275, 1303), and must provide sufficient information to differentiate exhibits, (See e.g. 1278–1285, 1335–1345.)

* Corrected trial brief by Bar Bakers (15 pages in length) has been received by Dept. 19 .

The parties are ordered to make all of the above corrections and submit the revised items to Dept. 19 by 1:30 p.m. on October 23, 2019.