Memorandum Points and Authorities

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.September 21, 2016

JAMES McMANIS (40958) TYLERATKINSON (257997) JAMES GIACCHETTI (307117) McMANISFAULKNER, a Professional Corporation 50 West San Fernando Street, 10'" Floor San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: (408) 279-8700 Facsimile: (408) 279-3244 Email: jgiacchetti@mcmanislaw.corn Attorneys for Plaintiff, MICHAELHANNEKEN 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 MICHAELHANNEKEN, Case No.: 16CV300285 13 14 vs. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF7S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (LE FRANCOIS) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LELANDSTANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,WILLIAMJ. PERRY, DOES 1-50, Defendants. MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'8 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (IE FRANCOIS); Case No.: 16CV300285 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 4/26/2019 6:11 PM Reviewed By: A. Nakamoto Case #16CV300285 Envelope: 2815848 16CV300285 Santa Clara - Civil A. Nakamoto TABLEOF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . ARGUMENT I. THE COURT MAYRECONSIDER ITS ORDER .... II. DEFENDANTS'XPERT AND STAFF FEES SHOULD BE 7 FURTHER TAXED. COUNSEL'S DECLARATIONS ARE INADEQUATETO PROVE COSTS. 10 A. Paragraph 11 And Exhibits E And G Of The Lanphere Declarations. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111 ..... B. Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irr. Dist. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 765. C. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761. D. Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256. CONCLUSION E. County ofKern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107.... F. Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258.......... B. Paragraph 12, 13, And 15 OfThe Lanphere Declarations..... IV. PLAINTIFFDID NOT "EDIT"CASE LANGUAGE..... 10 ....... I2 ..13 2 MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (LE FRAttCOIS); Case No.: 16CV300285 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CASES Bach v. County ofButte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294. County ofKern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107 Ellenberger v. Karr (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 423. Goodstein v. Bank ofSan Pedro (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 899. Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258 . Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094. Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111 Nelson, Oak Grove Sch. Dist. ofSanta Clara Cty. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, ...........................................................................,............ Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256. Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broad. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 102. Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irr. Dist. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 765 ................ STATUTES ... 1 2 ... 1 I, 1 2 8, 12 9, 11 ...5,6 .... 1 0 ... I 0 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Code Civ. Proc. $ 998(c)(l). Evid. Code $ 403(a). Evid. Code f 800.. Evid. Code $ 801. RULES California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700.. ... 1 0 26 27 3 MFA ISO PLAINTIFF'8 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (LE FRANCOIS); Case No.: 16CV300286 1 INTRODUCTION Stanford University and William Perry ("defendants") filed a Memorandum of Costs on or about February 22, 2019. The Memorandum of Costs claims expert fees for two (2) alleged experts and their staff. Lieutenant Colonel Michael Hanneken ("Col. Hanneken") objected to the Memorandum of Costs by filing a Motion to Tax Costs ("Motion") on March 11, 2019. Plaintiff moved to tax expert witness costs. In response, defendants filed Defendants'pposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Tax Costs ("Opposition" ) on April 3, 2019. Plaintifffiled a Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Tax Costs ("Reply") and Objections to Evidence ("Plaintiffs Objections" ) on April 9, 2019. 10 The Court held oral argument on the Motion on April 16, 2019, and issued an Order on Plaintiffs Motion to Tax Costs ("Order" ) that day. As provided in the Court's Order, 12 13 14 15 16 defendants'xpert witness fees were taxed less than one (1) percent of the amount plaintiff requested. The Court also overruled all ofplaintiffs objections to the evidence submitted by defendants in support of their Memorandum of Costs and in opposition to plaintiffs motion Plaintiffrespectfully requests the Court exercise its inherent authority to review its Order First, there was no showing by defendants of the need or foundation for charges by 17 various staff at FTI. The authorities cited by the Court do not support the proposition that an 18 attorney declaration is sufficient under these circumstances. Further, plaintiffaffirmatively 19 20 21 presented evidence that the only expert witness, Mr. Hazel, did not have knowledge of the work of these individuals. While the Court states that plaintiffs motion included a declaration "only" addressing expert and technology costs, these costs represented more than 88 percent of the 22 overall costs challenged by the motion to tax ($ 162,648.30). 23 24 25 26 27 28 Second, the Court's Order takes issue with plaintiffs analysis of several cases, and unfairly accuses plaintiffof offering "edited" case language, and mischaracterizing or misquoting authorities. At no time did plaintiffmisquote a case opinion. The crux of the Court's criticism concerns plaintiffs analysis of the circumstances under which a motion to tax represents a sufficient objection so as to shift the burden to the party requesting costs. The Court criticizes plaintiff's Reply for arguing that a motion to tax is sufficient to shift the burden. 4 MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (LE FRANCOIS); Case No.: 16CV300285 1 Plaintifffiled a proper Motion to object to defendants'emorandum of Costs 2 Defendants filed an Opposition brief, arguing that, even as to defendant's expert costs, plaintiffs 3 motion to tax and declaration were insufficient as an-objection (see Opposition, p. 7:11-18.) 4 Further, Defendant's Opposition did not acknowledge that a verified memorandum willnot 5 support a request that is not reasonable on its face, or that is disputed by evidence available to the 6 Court through its own observation or case file. The Reply that the Court criticizes should be read 7 in the context of the Opposition to which it was responding. 8 For these reasons, plaintiffrespectfully requests the Court amend its Order. ARGUMENT 10 I. THE COURT MAYRECONSIDER ITS ORDER. 11 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that a party may make an application to the same 12 judge or court that made an order to reconsider and modify the prior order. (See Le Franoois v. 13 Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107.) 14 Plaintiff invites that the Court to reconsider its Order as to expert fees. The Honorable 15 Judge Patricia Lucas issued the Order on April 16, 2019. Plaintiffsubmitted this request for 16 reconsideration within ten (10) days of that date. Plaintiffs Motion, Reply, and Plaintiff's 17 Objections warrant further taxation of defendants'xpert fees. Defendants withdrew one of its 18 experts before trial, and that expert was not deposed. The other expert did not testify at trial. 19 The expert staff were not identified to plaintiff, were not qualified as experts, and were not 20 expected to testify at trial. No evidence supports their fees. Regardless, the Court taxed 21 defendants less than one (1) percent the total amount requested. The Court's Order as to expert 22 costs was excessive in light of the limited utilityof defendants'xperts and the experts'taff to 23 this case, and the lack of evidence submitted to support the claimed expert and staff costs. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 6 MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (LE FRANCOISI; Case No.: 16CV300286 II. DEFENDANTS'XPERT AND STAFF FEES SHOULD BE FURTHER TAXED. Code of CivilProcedure section 998 authorizes a party to recover post-settlement offer expert witness costs that were "actually incurred and reasonably necessary" to the preparation of the case. (Code Civ. Proc. ( 998(c)(1).) To challenge such costs, a "motion to strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable." (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(2).) There is no requirement that a declaration be submitted in order properly to object to a memorandum of costs. 10 Here, plaintifffiled a timely Motion, and supported that Motion with a declaration. Cases support the proposition that, based upon that proper objection, particularly in light of the evidentiary objections asserted by plaintiff, defendants bore the burden to prove expert costs. 12 13 The Court cites only Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broad. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4tb 102 in suppo'rt of the contention that "the law is well settled that fees for skilled professionals who 14 15 assist testifying experts to prepare their testimony are allowable as expert witness fees." (Order 6:20-23.) The law does not appear to be settled on this issue. (See, e.g., Goodstein v. Bank of 16 San Pedro (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 899, 910; see e.g., Ellenberger v. Karr (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 17 423, 428.) Also, Santantonio is distinguishable. 18 19 In Santantonio, the court awarded expert fees and a portion of the staff fees requested for the work of experts that testified at trial, and provided services that "were reasonably necessary 20 21 forpresentation ofdefendants'ase [at trialj." (Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broad. Co., Cal.App.4th at p. 123.) The court allowed a portion of"itemized charges for staff economists 22 23 and other skilled employees who helped them in that preparation." (/d. at p. 124.) It is not apparent from the Santantonio opinion that the only evidence in support of these costs was a 24 verified memorandum. Indeed, to the contrary, the trial court in Santantonio had the benefit of '5 26 27 the particular expert's testimony, "supported by some 34 exhibits, consisting of charts and graphs prepared under his direction." (/d. at p. 122.) Thus, it is apparent the trial court was familiar with the work of the expert's staff. 28 /// 6 MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (LE FRANCOIS); Case Nos 16CV300285 Here, defendants did not call an expert at trial. The work performed was not actually necessary at trial. There was no foundation provided in support of the requested work, e.g., the declaration of the expert identifying the work of the staff. Unlike in Santantonio, there is no evidence this staff were skilled or otherwise qualified, or that their rates were reasonable. Furthermore, the court in Santantonio taxed a substantial portion of the expert and staff costs requested. Here, the Court essentially awarded defendants all of the claimed expert costs. 7 III. COUNSEL'S DECLARATIONSARE INADEQUATETO PROVE COSTS. The only evidence presented by defendants is contained in two (2) declarations of defendants'ounsel, Andrew Lanphere, submitted on February 22, 2019, and April 3, 2019. The 10 Court overruled all ofplaintiffs evidentiary objections to Mr. Lanphere's declarations. The evidence submitted to support defendants'equest for expert fees should not have been received 12 13 by the Court. Those declarations lack foundation, and they are improper opinion. In light of the discussion set forth above, the Court should reconsider its rulings on Plaintiffs Objections. 14 A. Paraaranh 11 And Exhibits E And G Of The Lannhere Declarations. 15 16 A court must find sufficient evidence that a witness possesses personal knowledge of the subject matter of his testimony before such testimony is received. (Evid. Code $ 403(a).) 17 18 19 20 Defendants failed to establish that Mr. Lanphere possesses knowledge sufficient to allow Mr. Lanphere to authenticate the information contained in Paragraph 11 ofhis declarations and Exhibits E and G (the FTI invoices). Mr. Lanphere lacks knowledge to establish the records are actual billing records, i.e., the documents that Mr. Lanphere claims them to be. He did not 21 prepare the documents, and he was not present while those documents were created. Mr. 22 Lanphere did not observe the work of experts and staff. Mr. Lanphere cannot establish the 23 24 authenticity of the documents referenced in Paragraph 11 ofhis declarations. The declarations are insufficient to allow the Court to consider those paragraphs and exhibits as evidence. 25 26 27 28 /// 7 MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (/E FRA/VCOIS); Case Nos 16CV300285 B. Paraaranh 12. 13. And 15 Of The Lannhere Declarations. Lay witness opinion testimony is limited to such an opinion as is rationally based on the perception of the witness. (Evid. Code f 800.) Expert opinion testimony is limited matter that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion ofan expert would assist the trier of fact and based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education) that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates. (Evid. Code $ 801.) The declarations of Mr. Lanphere contain opinions about the utilityor work performed by 10 supposed experts and their staff, and the reasonable and customary hourly rates of those individuals. Those statements are opinions. As a lay witness, those opinions are inadmissible because they are not related to or necessary to understand percipient facts that are so complex or 12 13 subtle that the only means available to describe them is in the form of an expert opinion. As an expert witness, those opinions are inadmissible because they are not based on the 14 special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education of Mr. Lanphere. There is no 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 foundation to show that Mr. Lanphere is qualified to submit evidence on such matters. The Court concludes that defense counsel is qualified to state those opinions because plaintiff"does not explain why counsel familiar with the legal issues and working closely with an expert is not the appropriate person to opine as to the importance and reasonableness of the expert's work." (Order 3:26-4:1.) The Court relies on Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1264-1265 for the proposition that "[a] declaration of counsel is adequate to establish ... the amounts paid to experts," and that expert bills were "admissible to prove the 22 reasonableness of charges incurred." (Order 4:3-6, 10-11.) The Court has over extended the 23 24 limited hearsay exception addressed in Jones, 63 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1267-1268. As in Jones, invoices are admissible for the limited purpose to corroborate testimony that 25 charges were paid, and ifpaid, as evidence that the charges were reasonable. Here, the Court 26 27 28 allows defendants to rely on Mr. Lanphere's declarations for evidence ofmore than verification that costs were charged and paid. Simply because Mr. Lanphere can verify bills and charges does not make him qualified to opine as to the reasonableness of tasks and hourly rates. 8 MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (LE FRAIVCOIS); Case No.: 16CV300286 Plaintiffdoes not dispute that Mr. Lanphere is competent to testify as to the amount defendant paid to alleged experts and staff. Those matters are distinct from the utilityof tasks performed by supposed experts and the reasonable and customary rates of those individuals and their staff. There is no evidence that Mr. Lanphere is qualified to testify on those subjects. IV. PLAINTIFFDID NOT "EDIT"CASE LANGUAGE. The Order includes more than four pages ofanalysis on plaintiffs challenge tb deposition costs ($5,724.80). Throughout this portion of the Order, the Court takes plaintiffto task over the relevant standard and burden ofproof, and accuses plaintiffof "edit[ing]"case language. A. Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.Ann.4th 111. 10 The Order states plaintiff"edits" Nelson. The Order creates the false impression that plaintiffactually quoted Nelson. (Order 8:20-9:2.) Plaintiffnever quoted, and did not 12 13 mischaracterize, Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131. (See Reply 5:14-19.) Plaintiffquoted Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761. After 14 accurately quoting Ladas in the Reply, plaintiffreferenced Nelson in a string citation, with the 15 direction "see also," which means "compare" or "consult," for the proposition that a motion to 16 tax costs is a proper objection. 17 In Nelson, a party contended that the mere filingof a motion to tax costs shifted the 18 19 20 burden ofproof of the necessity and reasonableness of the costs. The court agreed that "the mere filingof a motion to tax costs may be a proper objection to an item, the necessity ofwhich appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face." (Nelson, 72 Cal.App.4th at 21 p. 131.) The court stated that where "items appear to be proper charges, the verified 22 memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were 23 24 necessarily incurred by the defendant...and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party]." (Ibid.) 25 26 27 28 /// 9 MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (l.E FRANCO/$); Case No.: 16CV300285 As relied on by Nelson, Oak Grove Sch. Dist. ofSanta Clara Cty. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698-699 demonstrates that a motion to tax costs can be a proper objection. In Oak Grove, the court stated that a motion to tax places those items at-issue: where the items are properly objected to by the plaintiffthey are put in issue, and the burden ofproof is upon the defendant to establish the costs which are objected to.... It is not necessary that the plaintiffaccompany the motion to tax costs with any affidavit, but at the hearing he may present any competent evidence, oral or written.... Moreover, ifthe correctness of the memorandum is challenged either in whole or in part by the affidavit or other evidence of the contesting party, the burden is then on the party claiming the costs and disbursements to show that the items charged were for matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action. 10 (Oak Grove Sch. Dist. ofSanta Clara Cty., 217 Cal.App.2d at pp. 698-699.) The statements made in Nelson and its citation to Oak Grove shows that a memorandum 12 13 of costs is sufficient to put at issue the items claimed in a memorandum of costs. B. Waener Farms. Inc. v. Modesto Irr. Dist. (2006) 145 CaLAnn.4th 765. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Order suggests that plaintiffintentionally omitted a "key word" from a quote in Wagner Farms. Yet plaintiffdid not quote-or purport to quote-Wagner Farms. Contrary to the Court's claim, plaintiffdid not "omit" any words, mischaracterize the holding, or suggest a "contrary rule." (See Order 10:4-5, 10.) Wagner Farms, Inc. provides: "ifthe items on a verified cost bill appear proper charges they are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred.... However, where the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue, and the burden of proof is upon the party claiming them as costs...." (Wagner Farms, Inc., 145 Cal.App.4th at pp. 773-774 (quotations omitted).) Plaintiffs Reply did not attempt to set up a "contrary" rule to the holding stated above. (See Order 10:4-5, 10.) Plaintiffs asserted that a motion to tax costs is a proper objection. Such a position is consistent with the law. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700.) 26 27 28 /// 10 MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (t.E FRANCOIS); Case Nos 16CV300286 C. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 CaLAnn.4th 761. Plaintiffdirectly quotes Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774. As provided therein, where items on a cost bill "are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden ofproof is on the party claiming them as costs." (See Reply 5:14-19.) As stated in Ladas: "Ifthe items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, ifthe items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden ofproof is on the 10 party claiming them as costs." (Ladas, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.) Ladas provides that a motion to tax costs can be sufficient to put the items in a memorandum of costs at issue. D. Raooenecker v. Sea-Land Serv.. Inc. (1979) 93 CaLAnp.3d 256. The Court cites Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266 for 12 the quote that, "Defendant's mere statement in the points and authorities accompanying its notice 13 of motion to strike cost bill and the declaration of its counsel are insufficient to rebut the prima 14 facie showing." (See Order 7:27-8:2.) That sentence is not the complete statement from 15 16 Rappenecker. There, the court stated: "Where the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue, and the burden of proof is upon the party claiming them as costs.... The normal procedure 17 to challenge individual items is by a motion to tax costs....Defendant's mere statements in the 18 points and authorities accompanying its notice of motion to strike cost bill and the declaration of 19 20 its counsel are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing." (Id. at p. 266.) Here, unlike in Rappenecker, plaintiffcomplied with "normal procedure," and filed a proper motion to tax costs. 21 E. Countv ofKern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.Apn.3d 1107. 22 Plaintiffquoted County ofKern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113-1114, which 23 states that the trial court found that a declaration "indicate[d] depositions were clearly within the 24 realm of necessity...." (Reply 5:19-22.) This is not a "straw man." (Order 10:11.) The trial 25 court in County ofKern was not "reversed for doing just what Plaintiffurges here." (Order 26 10:18.) Plaintiffcited this case for the proposition that a declaration should provide sufficient 27 evidence to'llow a court to determine whether a claimed cost was reasonably necessary to the 28 litigation. II MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (LE FRAIVCOIS); Case No.; 16CV300285 In County ofKern, "defendant submitted no affidavits in support ofher motion to tax costs....Opposed to this was the county's declaration under penalty of perjury that each item in the cost bill was reasonably incurred." (Kern, 146 Cal.App.3d at p. 1113-1114.) Here, contrary to Kern, plaintiffsubmitted a declaration in support of plaintiffs Motion, Defendants failed to submit declarations that contain competent evidence to support their request for expert and staff fees. In keeping with Kern, the Court should tax defendants'laimed costs. F. Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 CaLAnn.4th 1258. Plaintiffdirectly quoted Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1265 for the 10 12 13 14 proposition that where a party "objected to [a] verified memorandum of costs, the burden shifted to [the other party] to prove [their] costs." (Reply 5:23-25.) In Jones, the court considered an appeal of expert witness fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. There, the Court stated "Appellants are correct that because they properly objected to respondent's verified memorandum of costs, the burden shifted to respondent to prove his costs....Once costs claimed in the memorandum are challenged via a motion to tax, '[d]ocumentation must be submitted'o 15 sustain the burden....." (Jones, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1265 (citations omitted).) 16 Contrary to the Court's Order, plaintiffdid not directly cite or quote Bach v. County of 17 18 19 20 Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 308. (Reply 6:3-7.) Instead, plaintiffdirectly cited Jones, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1265. In the portion ofJones relied on by plaintiff, Jones quoted Bach v. County ofButte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294. Plaintiffreferenced that case to recognize that the court in Jones, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1265 cited Bach. The court in Bach stated that "a properly 21 verified memorandum of costs is considered prima facie evidence that the costs listed in the 22 23 memorandum were necessarily incurred....'ocumentation must be submitted only when a party dissatisfied with the costs claimed in the memorandum challenges them by filing a motion to tax 24 25 costs." (Bach, 215 Cal.App.3d at pp. 307-308.) Jones and Bach support the conclusion that plaintiffs Motion was sufficient to challenge defendants'emorandum of Costs. 26 27 28 /// 12 MPA ISO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (/.E FRA//CO/SI; Case No.: 16CV300286 CONCLUSION Plaintiff's Motion was a proper objection. Further, the Declarations of Andrew Lanphere included inadmissible evidence. Plaintiffrequests that the Court on its own motion reconsider its Order. Plaintiffrespectfully requests the Court to reconsider its cost award and revise its characterizations of plaintiff's Reply. Dated: April 26, 2019 McMANISFAULKNER 10 JAMES McMANIS TYLER ATKINSON JAMES GIACCHETTI 12 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MICHAELHANNEKEN 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 MPA Iso PLAINTIFF's REQUEsT FQR REcoNsIDERATIQN 1EE FRANcols); case No.: 16cv300286