Klimkowski vs. Briggs

Motion to Strike

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.April 16, 2015

N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FRANK W. NEMECEK (SBN 62260) LUCY H. MEKHAEL (SBN 185325) NEMECEK & COLE A Professional Corporation 16255 Ventura Blvd., Suite 300 Encino, California 91436 Tel: (818) 788.9500 / Fax: (818) 501-0328 E. Imekhael@nemecek-cole.com | Attorneys for Defendant STEVEN E. BRIGGS SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER RICHARD KLIMKOWSKI, Case No. 30-2015-00782900-CU-PN-CJC [Honorable Deborah Servino, Dept. C21] Plaintiff, Reservation No.: 72806126 Vs. Date: September 21, 2018 Time: 10:00 a.m. STEVEN E. BRIGGS; DUCKWORTH and Dept.: C21 MEHNER, LLP; GLENN MEHNER, an individual and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND Defendants. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF RON ANFUSO AND MARSHALL WALLER AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFEF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES [Filed concurrently with Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment; Response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of “Disputed” and Undisputed Material Facts; Motion to Strike and Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Richard Klimkowski; Response to Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections; and [Proposed] Orders] Complaint filed: April 16, 2015 Current Trial Date: October 29, 2018 | DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 A PR OF ES SI ON AL CO RP OR AT IO N 16 25 5 VE NT UR A BO UL EV AR D, SU IT E 30 0, EN CI NO , CA LI FO RN IA 91 43 6- 23 00 TE LE PH ON E (8 18 ) 78 8- 95 00 FA CS IM IL E (8 18 ) 50 1- 03 28 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant STEVEN E. BRIGGS (“Briggs,”) respectfully submits his Motion to Strike and Objections to the Declarations of Ron Anfuso and Marshall Waller and Objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibits filed in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Briggs’ Motion for Summary Judgmentor, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues (“Motion”). THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE DECLARATIONS OF RON ANFUSO AND MARSHALL WALLER IN THEIR ENTIRETY The Court should strike the declarations of Plaintiff’s experts, CPA Ron Anfuso (“Anfuso”) and Plaintiff's standard of care expert, Marshall Waller (“Waller”), in their entirety as they are inadmissible and irrelevant to Briggs’ Motion based on lack of causation and damages. Both expert declarations opine on inadmissible and irrelevantissues pertaining to Briggs’ alleged breaches ofthe standard of care, breaches of duties to Plaintiff, his alleged failure to conduct discovery regarding Elizabeth Klimkowski’s (“Elizabeth”) assets, his alleged “miscalculation” of spousal support, among other alleged acts or omissions which are completely outside the scope of Briggs’ Motion based on lack of causation and damages. In other words, Plaintiff's expert declarations based on the standard of care cannot be used to create a triable issue of material fact as to the sole issues of causation and damages before this Court. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482-483; Thompson v. Halvonik (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 657, 661- 662.) Plaintiff’s burden on summary judgment was to present competent, admissible evidence demonstrating the existence ofa triable issue of material fact as to the elements of proximate causation and damages -- not breach of duty. (/d.) Nor can Plaintiff rely on these expert declarations to create a triable issue of material fact as to the element of causation, since experts cannot opine on the ultimate issue of causation in this legal malpractice action. (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 971-974; Forensics Group, Inc. v. Frantz, Townsend & Foldenauer (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 14, 38 [“An expert ordinarily cannottestify on the ultimate issues in the case, such as whether the Hernandez family should have wonits underlying productliability claim after all”].) Thus, the ultimate opinion of Plaintiff’s experts that Plaintiff somehow should not have paid any spousal support to 2 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A PR OF ES SI ON AL CO RP OR AT IO N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 O O 0 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Elizabeth and should have obtained a better result on the issue of support constitutes impermissible opinion on causation which is inadmissible,irrelevant and cannot be considered. Additionally, both expert declarations rely on “evidence” that is not part of the record and not attached in support of Plaintiff's Opposition,as the “bases” for their opinions. Such “evidence” includes inadmissible third party declarations (including the declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that were never produced in discovery) and exhibits purportedly attached to those declarations which are not before this Court. They also include Elizabeth’s K-1s and tax returns which are not only irrelevant, but are inadmissible hearsay, not part of the record and have not been authenticated. However, this Court must consider only the evidence before it in the record in ruling on Briggs’ Motion and therefore cannot consider the inadmissible opinions of Plaintiff’s experts based on speculative assumptions that have not been proven and documents which are not part of the record on summary judgment. An expert’s opinion premised upon factual assumptions without supporting evidence, or on conjecture or speculation, lacks foundation and has no evidentiary value. Where there is no evidence ofthe facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) The expert declarations are also inadmissible because they improperly rely on case-specific inadmissible hearsay as “truth” of the matters asserted. For example, both expert declarations improperly rely on the inadmissible declaration of Richard Klimkowski, which is replete with inadmissible argument and unfounded assumptions, as evidence ofthe “truth” of the matters stated in that declaration. They also rely on the inadmissible hearsay contents of Elizabeth’s Income and Expense Declarations as proof of her income and assets, as well as Elizabeth’s tax returns and K- 1’s which are not submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition nor properly authenticated. In 3 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 O O © J O O 10 11 12 13 14 15 | 16 17 18 19 | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, the California Supreme Court made clearthat a party is precluded from “bootstrapping” improper hearsay evidence through its presentation by an expert. The Court held that while the rule against hearsay does not prevent an expert from testifying about his or her general knowledge in the field of expertise,it precludes an expert from relating case- specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge. (Id., at 676.) Thus, an expert cannot “relate as true case-specific facts asserted in hearsay statements, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception.” (Id., at 685- 686.) This is because if the hearsay the expert relies on is not true, then an important basis for the expert’s opinion is missing. (/d.) (See also People v. McWhorter (2009) 47 Cal.4th 318, 362 [“[T]he value of an expert's opinion depends on the truth of the facts assumed.’ [Citation.] “Where the basis of the opinion is unreliable hearsay, the courts will reject it.’ [Citations.]") People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 618 [“Like a house built on sand, the expert's opinion is no better than the facts on which it is based’”].) On these multiple grounds, the Court should strike the Anfuso and Waller expert declarations in their entirety. OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF RON ANFUSO Objection No. 1 A. Statement “As a forensic accountant, I routinely provide opinions on and have extensive experience in analyzing the financial, accounting and tax aspects of marital dissolution matters; determination of gross cash flow available for support; analysis of marital standard of living; tracing engagements for the purposes of determining post-separation reimbursements; Family Code § 2640 reimbursements; assessing Pereira, Van Camp, Epstein, Marsden and other case-referenced financial issues; forensic analysis of issues concerning property division of assets, assignment of debts and claims for reimbursement; and characterization of property as community or separate.” (Anfuso Dec., § 5.) I I 4 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 ~ N O Y n e B A W N 10 | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 2 A. Statement “I have qualified and testified as an expert witness in the field of forensic accounting in family law and civil/commercial litigation matters in Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Sacramento, San Bernardino, Riverside and Ventura County Superior Courts and have been appointed as a forensic accounting and valuation expert pursuant to Evidence Code § 730 on several occasions.” (Anfuso Dec., 6.) B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 3 A. Statement I have reviewed the following items in preparation for rendering the opinions that I express in this declaration (Anfuso Dec., §7.): A. Stipulation and Orderfiled January 10, 2013 in the dissolution case, IRMO Klimkowski, OCSC Case No. 07D002251 (Exhibit “1” to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski). B. Income and Expense Declaration filed August 23, 2012 by Petitioner Elizabeth Klimkowski in the dissolution case, IRMO Klimkowski, OCSC Case No. 07D002251 (Exhibit “2” to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski). 5 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. Income and Expense Declaration filed August 24, 2012 by Respondent Richard Klimkowski in the dissolution case, IRMO Klimkowski, OCSC Case No. 07D002251 (Exhibit “3” to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski). D. Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure dated August 7, 2008 and purporting to have been signed by Petitioner Elizabeth Klimkowski in the dissolution case, IRMO Klimkowski, OCSC Case No. 07D002251 (Exhibit “13”to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski). E. The Declaration of Richard Klimkowski. F. Documents produced in this case by Elizabeth Klimkowski pursuant to subpoena, specifically pages sequentially numbered EK000001 through 958 (deposition exhibits 5250 and 5265). G. Documents produced in this case by Aragon Holdings pursuant to subpoena, specifically pages sequentially numbered ARA000392 through 397. H. Report prepared by Michael Bonneau addressed to Steven E. Briggs dated April 4, 2012, pages sequentially numbered P048463 through 467. I. Documents produced on or about January 23, 2013 by Thomas & Feesin the dissolution case, IRMO Klimkowski, OCSC Case No. 07D002251 pursuant to subpoena, including individual tax returns of Elizabeth Klimkowski for the tax years 2010 and 2011 and Schedules K-1 issued to her for those tax years for five Aragon entities and for Abbey Properties. J. Declaration of Elizabeth A. Klimkowski in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions dated August 18, 2017 submitted in this case (deposition exhibit 5209). K. A Community Balance Sheet from Duckworth & Mehner, LLP dated 11/28/2012. L. Declaration of Raymond Roski dated October 4, 2017 filed in this case, wherein Mr. Roski purports to act in the capacity of custodian of records for Abbey Properties, a Limited Partnership, to which are attached Schedules K-1 issued to Elizabeth Klimkowskifor the tax years 2010 through 2015, attached to the declaration as sequentially numbered pages ABY000001 through 18. I 6 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 w v B A W N O o c o 3 O O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M. Declaration of Dan Guy dated September 19, 2017 filed in this case, wherein Mr. Guy purports to act in the capacity of custodian of records for Aragon 2009/Fairway, LLC, Aragon 2009/Regatta LLC, Aragon 2010/Lodge, LLC, and Aragon 2010/Vail Quarters, LLC, to which are attached Schedules K-1 issued to Elizabeth Klimkowski for the tax years 2013 through 2015, attached to the declaration as sequentially numbered pages ARG000001 through 48. B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competentto testify to the mattersstated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannot testify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401 [“Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence™].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence”].) The majority of the referenced documents relied upon are not submitted in support of Plaintiff’s opposition and outside the record, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence of the facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property 7 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 A PR OF ES SI ON AL C O R P O R A T I O N 16 25 5 V E N T U R A BO UL EV AR D, SU IT E 30 0, EN CI NO , CA LI FO RN IA 91 43 6- 23 00 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 78 8- 95 00 FA CS IM IL E (8 18 ) 50 1- 03 28 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on | unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 4 A. Statement The declarations and materials referred to in the preceding paragraph are of the type that I customarily rely upon in forming opinions such as those contained in this declaration. (Anfuso Dec., 8.) B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannot testify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401 [*“Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence].) The majority of the referenced documents relied upon are not submitted in support of Plaintiff’s opposition and outside the record, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration 8 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A PR OF ES SI ON AL C O R P O R A T I O N 16 25 5 V E N T U R A BO UL EV AR D, SU IT E 30 0, EN CI NO , CA LI FO RN IA 91 43 6- 23 00 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 78 8- 95 00 FA CS IM IL E (8 18 ) 50 1- 03 28 c o N N O y O 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence ofthe facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 5 A. Statement “Based on the information that I have reviewed and the analysis that I have undertaken,I offer the following opinions (Anfuso Dec., § 9(A).): A. Dr. Richard Klimkowski’s Gross Cash Flow for the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 is $15,462 per month — Dr. Klimkowski sold his medical practice in 2010 and has no longer practiced medicine since then. His primary income was from monthly disability income paid by Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. in the amount of $13,180. Dr. Klimkowski also | received dividends and interest in the amount of $2,282 per month based upon his 2011 individual income tax return. I have calculated Dr. Klimkowski’s monthly 2012 cash flow / income available for support was in the amount of $15,462 ($13,180 disability + $2,282 dividends and interest). This figure is the same amountutilized by the attorneys and forensic accountant to determine the permanent spousal support that was agreed to be paid to Ms. Klimkowski in the amount of $4,175 per month beginning January 1, 2013 (Exhibit “1” to the foregoing Declaration of Richard 9 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 w v B A W N S O 9 O Y 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Klimkowski).” B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however,is not evidence™].) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannottestify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401 [“Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence”].) The majority of the referenced documents relied upon are not submitted in support of Plaintiff’s opposition and outside the record, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence of the facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos 10 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 N O 0 0 9 D N 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 6 A. Statement “Based on the information that I have reviewed and the analysis that I have undertaken, I offer the following opinions (Anfuso Dec., § 9(B).) B. Elizabeth Klimkowski’s Gross Cash Flow for the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 is $13,335 per month — Ms. Klimkowski’s primary income was derived from her passive investments with Aragon Holdings, wherein she was a limited domestic partner in various partnership ventures. These passive investments provided monthly distributions which amounted to $12,195 on average, based upon our review of a distribution schedule prepared by Aragon Holdings and the 2012 Schedule “K-1"s issued. Ms. Klimkowski received $776 per month in rental payments related to the cell tower site located on the parties’ vacant land in 2012. The actual monthly payment she received according to a payment schedule we reviewed was in the amount of $991.88 but we reduced this figure by $216 per month to account for the annual property taxes due based upon the 2011 Schedule "E" contained in Ms. Klimkowski's income tax return. Ms. Klimkowski also received dividends and interest in the amount of $364 per month according to her 2011 individual income tax return. As a result of these findings, I calculated Ms. Klimkowski’s monthly cash flow / income available for support was in the amount of $13,335 ($12,195 passive investments + $776 cell tower income + $364 dividends and interest). My finding ofMs. Klimkowski’s monthly cash flow is significantly higher than the monthly cash flow she reported in her Income and Expense declaration (Form FL-150) dated August 23, 2012 in the amount of $4,632 ($4,268 passive investments + $364 dividends and interest) upon which the | stipulation that the parties entered into in December 2012 was made (Exhibit “1” to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski). My finding of Ms. Klimkowski’s monthly cash flow is also 11 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 N O 0 9 O N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 significantly higher than the monthly cash flow of $8,000 (self-employment income) which was utilized by the attorneys and forensic accountant to determine the 2012 spousal support payments to be made to Ms. Klimkowski in the amount of $3,367 per month (Exhibit “7”to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski).” B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition ofthis Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competentto testify to the mattersstated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however,is not evidence™].) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannottestify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401 [“Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence™].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence].) The majority of the documents relied upon for this expert’s opinions are not submitted in support of Plaintiff’s opposition and outside the record, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence of the facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert 12 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 O o 0 9 O y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 7 A. Statement “Based on the information that I have reviewed and the analysis that I have undertaken, I offer the following opinions (Anfuso Dec., § 9(C).) C. DissoMaster™ Report: I understand that the DissoMaster™ computer program is not used to determine long-term support. I have utilized it as a means of comparing the results ofmy cash flow findings to the cash flow figures utilized in determining the support that was stipulated to by the parties. I have prepared two reports utilizing the DissoMaster™![1] computer program (Version 2018-2) that summarizes the basic information entered into that computer program and the calculated results obtained therefrom. True and correct copies of those reports are attached hereto and marked collectively as Exhibit “17” and incorporated herein by this reference. In preparing these reports, I first summarized the basic information utilized by the DissoMaster™ program in a schedule entitled “Reconciliation of Gross Cash Flow to DissoMaster Input” a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “18” and incorporated herein by this reference.” I I !'(11 Set to tax years 2012 and 2013. 13 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 O O 0 N N D h 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannottestify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢c(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however, is not evidence™].) Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401 [“Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence™].) The majority of the documents relied upon for this expert’s opinions are not submitted in support of Plaintiff’s opposition and outside the record, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-15’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence of the facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony ofthe expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 14 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A PR OF ES SI ON AL CO RP OR AT IO N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 w v B A W N O v c o 3 A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 8 A. Statement “Based on the information that I have reviewed and the analysis that I have undertaken, I offer the following opinions (Anfuso Dec., § 9(D).) D. Spousal Support — The parties had no minor children. Dr. Klimkowskifiled Single with one personal exemption and Ms. Klimkowski filed Head of Household with two personal exemptions. Based on Dr. Klimkowski’s average monthly gross cash flow of $15,462 and Ms. Klimkowski’s average monthly gross cash flow of $13,335, utilizing CFLR DissoMaster™ V- 2018-2 [1], both the Guideline and Proposed,tactic 9, spousal support due is $0 to either party. This result of $0 support due is significantly different than the $4,175 spousal support figure due to Ms. Klimkowskithat the parties stipulated to in December, 2012 (Exhibit “1” to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski).” B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). Expert cannot opine on the ultimate issue of causation in this legal malpractice action. (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 971-974; Forensics Group, Inc. v. Frantz, Townsend & Foldenauer (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 14, 38 [“An expert ordinarily cannottestify on the ultimate issues in the case, such as whether the Hernandez family should have won its underlying product liability claim after all].) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannot testify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations 15 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 B S O O 0 N O W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 || 23 24 25 26 27 28 shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competentto testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however,is not evidence™].) Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401 [“Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence”].) The majority of the documents relied upon for this expert’s opinions are not submitted in support of Plaintiff’s opposition and outside the record, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s” and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence of the facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 9 A. Statement “Based on the information that I have reviewed and the analysis that I have undertaken, I offer the following opinions (Anfuso Dec., § 9(E).) 16 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E. Net Spendable Income Based upon $0 Spousal Support Due — Based on the Guideline support, the parties’ average monthly net spendable Income was as follows: Amount % Dr. Richard Klimkowski $ 15,326 53.5% Elizabeth Klimkowski $ 13,299 46.5 % Total $ 28,625 100 %” B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). Expert cannot opine on the ultimate issue of causation in this legal malpractice action. (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 971-974; Forensics Group, Inc. v. Frantz, Townsend & Foldenauer (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 14, 38 [“An expert ordinarily camot testify on the ultimate issues in the case, such as whether the Hernandez family should have won its underlying productliability claim after all”].) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannot testify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competentto testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however, is not evidence™].) Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401 [“Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence].) The majority ofthe documents relied upon for this expert’s opinions are not submitted in support of Plaintiffs opposition and outside the record, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with 17 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 ~ N O Y Wi n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H W exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s” and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence ofthe facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MARSHALLWALLER Objection No. 10 A. Statement I have reviewed the following items in preparation for rendering the opinions that I express in this declaration (Waller Declaration, { 5.): A. The foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski and all exhibits referenced in such declaration. B. The foregoing Declaration of Ron J. Anfuso, CPA/ABYV and all exhibits referenced in such declaration. B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannottestify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a 18 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.| O O 0 N N a w n k A w o N D e e e e e e E E t h H h W N = O N E M E C E K & C O L E on A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 N o t o D N N o N o N o N o n o = 4 — — ~ a N W w FE N w o N o — _ o S \ O [= e] ~ N o 0 hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc.section 437¢(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competentto testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however,is not evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence”].) The Waller declaration relies upon other declarations which rely upon matters outside the record and which cannot be considered, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence ofthe facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled 11 11 i 19 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 TE LE PH ON E (8 18 ) 78 8- 95 00 FA CS IM IL E (8 18 ) 50 1- 03 28 10 11 12 13 14 15 || 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Objection No. 11 A. Statement The declarations and materials referred to in the preceding paragraph are of the type that I customarily rely upon in forming opinions such as those contained in this declaration. (Waller Declaration, § 6.) B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannottestify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competentto testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however, is not evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence™].) The Waller declaration relies upon other declarations which rely upon matters outside the record and which cannot be considered, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K~1s’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence of the facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. 20 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 O o 0 9 O n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 12 A. Statement I am familiar with the custom and practice of attorneys of good standing in the greater Southern California area as to the support of spouses in long-term marriages upon proceedings for dissolution of marriage and such familiarity extends to the period encompassing calendar years 2010 through 2013. (Waller Declaration, 7.) B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Plaintiff's expert’s opinion based on the standard of care is irrelevant, inadmissible and cannot be used to create a triable issue of material fact as to the sole issues of causation and damages before this Court. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482-483; Thompson v. Halvonik (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 657, 661- 662.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 13 A. Statement “Such familiarity stems from my active family law practice and my constant communication with other attorneys in the greater Southern California area on just such matters of permanent and temporary spousal support virtually every day, both in and out of court. Also, since 21 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this is my specialization, I have a vital interest in knowing what my colleagues are doing. We talk of such things regularly, both in and out of the office.” (Waller Declaration, 8.) B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition ofthis Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion based on the standard of care is irrelevant, inadmissible and cannot be used to create a triable issue of material fact as to the sole issues of causation and damages before this Court. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482-483; Thompson v. Halvonik (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 657, 661- 662.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 14 A. Statement “Based on the totality of the information that I have reviewed I offer the following opinions (Waller Declaration, § 9(A).): A. Where the parties have split all major community property assets in a multi-million dollar dissolution estate; where one party (here, the wife, Elizabeth Klimkowski) has invested her share of the split community assets and enjoys a substantial and somewhat constant stream of monthly income; where the other party (here, the husband, Richard Klimkowski) has invested a portion of his share of the split community assets but does not enjoy more than a modest monthly income from such investments; where the actual monthly income ofthe parties is not known and several years have gone by allowing for the possible increase in the value of the investments; then the custom and practice is to conduct reasonable discovery to enable the lawyer representing the party with the lesser income stream to conduct an independent investigation and verification into and of the other party’s assets (including valuations) and actual income and thus be in a position with which to exercise informed judgment upon which to properly advise his or her client regarding the issue of permanent spousal support at such time as the parties participate in 22 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A PR OF ES SI ON AL CO RP OR AT IO N 16 25 5V EN TU RA BO UL EV AR D, SU IT E 30 0, EN CI NO , CA LI FO RN IA 91 43 6- 23 00 TE LE PH ON E (8 18 )7 88 -9 50 0 FA CS IM IL E (8 18 )5 01 -0 32 8 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 settlement discussions in the underlying dissolution case. The same is true for when efforts are made to modify temporary spousal support orders. I can’t conceive of a competent attorney proceeding in a substantially different way as the law is clear and the investigation and discovery required is minimal.” B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition ofthis Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Plaintiffs expert’s opinion based on the standard ofcare is irrelevant, inadmissible and cannot be used to create a triable issue of material fact as to the sole issues of causation and damages before this Court. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482-483; Thompson v. Halvonik (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 657, 661- 662.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannottestify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however, is not evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence”].) The Waller declaration relies upon other declarations which rely upon matters outside the record and which cannot be considered, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence ofthe facts assumed by the 23 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 ~ N O N n h B A W N 10 § 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 15 A. Statement “Based on the totality of the information that I have reviewed I offer the following opinions (Waller Declaration, § 9(B).): B. The actions, conduct and omissions of Defendant Steven E. Briggs were below the standard of care for a Certified Family Law Specialist in the greater Southern California area in that he failed to ensure that Elizabeth Klimkowski produced all documents that he had requested on behalf of Richard Klimkowski in a timely fashion prior to the settlement discussions conducted in December 2012 in the underlying dissolution case IRMO Klimkowski, OCSC Case No. 07D002251 that resulted in the execution by the parties in that case of the Stipulation and Order filed January 10, 2013 in that case (Exhibit “1” to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski).” B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Plaintiff's expert’s opinion based on the standard of care is irrelevant, inadmissible and cannot be used to create a triable issue of material fact as to the sole issues of causation and damages before this Court. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482-483; Thompson v. Halvonik (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 657, 661- 24 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 O O 0 0 J O a WW » H h L N E E e e e t e e w m B A WL W N = O O N E M E C E K & C O L E on A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 8 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 N o n o D N n o N o N o N o B N — _ — — ~ a N w n H n W w N o — o O \ O o o ~ N o c o 662.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannottestify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢c(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competentto testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however, is not evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th {| 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence™].) The Waller declaration relies upon other declarations which rely upon matters outside the record and which cannot be considered, specifically the following: Declaration ofDan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence ofthe facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled 25 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384. 1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 A W N O O 0 9 O Y W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Objection No. 16 A. Statement “Based on the totality of the information that I have reviewed I offer the following opinions (Waller Declaration, § 9(C).): C. Defendant Steven E. Briggs failed to perform adequate research and discovery and failed to conduct an independent investigation and verification into and of Elizabeth Klimkowski’s assets (including valuations) and her actual income and was thus unable to exercise informed judgment upon which to properly advise Richard regarding the issue of permanent spousal support at such time as the parties participated in settlement discussions conducted in December 2012 in the underlying dissolution case JRMO Klimkowski, OCSC Case No. 07D002251 that resulted in the execution by the parties in that case of the Stipulation and Orderfiled January 10, 2013 (Exhibit “1”to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski). Ms. Klimkowski’s information as apparently received by Defendant Briggs was simply insufficient in my opinion to make any determination as to spousal support and the possibility of losing a valuable right was obvious - as the work of Mr. Anfuso demonstrates, in my opinion Richard Klimkowski should have been required to make no spousal support payments to Elizabeth Klimkowski from and after January 1, 2012. This includes the January 11, 2012 temporary spousal support Stipulation and Order (Exhibit “7” to the foregoing declaration of Richard Klimkowski) and the Stipulation and Order filed January 10, 2013 (Exhibit “1” to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski). If the parties did not agree to this result at either the point of execution ofthe earlier or the later 2012 Stipulations, then the court, in my opinion, would have ultimately ordered this once it was apprised ofthe relative financial situation ofthe parties, something made difficult (if not impossible) by the failure of Defendant Briggs to follow up or otherwise pursue appropriate financial discovery of Ms. Klimkowski.” B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion based on the standard of care is irrelevant, inadmissible and cannot be used to create a triable issue of material fact as to 26 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION20083841 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 | the sole issues of causation and damages before this Court. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482-483; Thompson v. Halvonik (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 657, 661- 662.) Experts cannot opine on the ultimate issue of causation in this legal malpractice action. (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 971-974; Forensics Group, Inc. v. Frantz, Townsend & Foldenauer (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 14, 38 [“An expert ordinarily cannottestify on the ultimate issues in the case, such as whether the Hernandez family should have wonits underlying productliability claim after all”].) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) An expert cannot testify as to case-specific facts about which the expert has no independent knowledge, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676, 685-686.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢c(d) [“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competentto testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.”].) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864 [“Speculation, however, is not evidence].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence™].) The Waller declaration relies upon other declarations which rely upon matters outside the record and which cannot be considered, specifically the following: Declaration ofDan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s’ and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence of the facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation where it relied on 27 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 W w w n ~ N O y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 17 A. Statement “Based on the totality of the information that [ have reviewed I offer the following opinions (Waller Declaration, § 9(D).): D. As a direct and proximate result of the actions, conduct and omissions of Defendant Steven E. Briggs, in my opinion Richard Klimkowski has been damaged in the total amounts of permanent spousal support that he has paid to Elizabeth Klimkowski to date and for which heis currently obligated under the Stipulation and Order filed January 10, 2013 (Exhibit “1”to the foregoing Declaration of Richard Klimkowski).” B. Objection Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Plaintiff's expert’s opinion based on the standard ofcare is irrelevant, inadmissible and cannot be used to create a triable issue of material fact as to the sole issues of causation and damages before this Court. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482-483; Thompson v. Halvonik (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 657, 661- 662.) Experts cannot opine on the ultimate issue of causation in this legal malpractice action. (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 971-974; Forensics Group, Inc. v. Frantz, Townsend & Foldenauer (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 14, 38 [“An expert ordinarily cannot testify on the ultimate issues in the case, such as whether the Hernandez family should have won its underlying productliability claim after all”].) Lacks foundation. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403,§ 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢(d).) Inadmissible speculation. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613-614; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 28 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 w v B A W N O O 0 N N A d 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 826, 864 “Speculation, however, is not evidence”].) Assumes facts not in evidence. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1041 [statement must “be based on the evidence”].) The Waller declaration relies upon other declarations which rely upon matters outside the record and which cannot be considered, specifically the following: Declaration of Dan Guy with exhibits; Declaration of a Raymond Roski with exhibits that was never produced in discovery; documents produced in this action by Elizabeth; documents produced by third party Aragon Holdings a report by a Michael Bonneau; Elizabeth’s K-1s” and tax returns; a Declaration of Elizabeth Klimkowski; a Community Balance Sheet prepared by Duckworth & Mehner.) Where there is no evidence ofthe facts assumed by the expert, the opinions and testimony of the expert | should properly be excluded. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 [expert testimony excluded where expert based his opinion on assumption that was not supported by the evidence]; Dee v. PCS Property Mgmt., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 [expert opinion lacked foundation whereit relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible evidence]; County Sanitation Dist. No. 8 ofLos Angeles County v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1275-1277 [expert opinion excluded where based on improper matter].) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION Objection No. 18 A. Evidence Exhibit 12: Elizabeth Klimkowski’s Income and Expense Declaration filed on August 23, 2012 B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. 29 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 O O c o N N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | 26 27 28 Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 19 A. Evidence Exhibit 3: Richard Klimkowski’s Income and Expense Declaration filed on August 24, 2012. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition ofthis Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 20 A. Evidence Exhibit 4: E-mail from Annita De Giglio to R. Klimkowski dated November 28, 2012. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition ofthis Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled I 1 I 30 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A PR OF ES SI ON AL CO RP OR AT IO N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 N S O o 0 N N O Y W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Objection No. 21 A. Evidence Exhibit 5: Elizabeth Klimkowski’s Income and Expense Declaration filed on January 19, 2012. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition ofthis Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 22 A. Evidence Exhibit 6: Richard Klimkowski’s Income and Expense Declaration filed on October 29, 2010. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 23 A. Evidence Exhibit 7: Stipulation and Order on Order to Show Cause filed 1/11/12. 1 7 31 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 A PR OF ES SI ON AL C O R P O R A T I O N 16 25 5 V E N T U R A BO UL EV AR D, SU IT E 30 0, EN CI NO , CA LI FO RN IA 91 43 6- 23 00 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 78 8- 95 00 FA CS IM IL E (8 18 ) 50 1- 03 28 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 24 A. Evidence Exhibit 8: Pages 129-131, 147-149 and 160-161 of Vol. 1 of the deposition transcript of Steven Briggs for proceedings had on August 28, 2017. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition ofthis Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) The proffered testimony is relied upon as “evidence” of Briggs’ alleged negligence and is inadmissible and irrelevant to this Motion. C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 25 A. Evidence Exhibit 9: Pages 325-332, 341-342, 347, 398, 400-402, 405- 406, 408-413, 416-417, 423- 425, and 431-438 of Vol. 2 of the deposition transcript of Steven Briggs for proceedings had on August 31, 2017. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) The proffered testimony is relied upon as “evidence” of Briggs’ alleged negligence and is inadmissible and irrelevant to this Motion. I 32 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A PR OF ES SI ON AL CO RP OR AT IO N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 w v B A W N O o 0 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 26 A. Evidence Exhibit 10: Pages 473-476, 479, 481-485, 489-494, 499-506, 515-516, 520-522, 525-526, 528-529, 612 through 619 and 622 of Vol. 3 of the deposition transcript of Steven Briggs for proceedings had on November 8, 2017. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) The proffered testimonyis relied upon as “evidence” of Briggs’ alleged negligence and is inadmissible and irrelevantto this Motion. C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 27 A. Evidence Exhibit 11: Declaration of Defendant Briggsfiled in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication heard by this Court on May 5, 2017. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) The proffered testimonyis relied upon as “evidence” of Briggs’ alleged negligence and is inadmissible and irrelevant to this Motion; outside the scope of this Motion. C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled I 33 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Objection No. 28 A. Evidence Exhibit 12: Proof of Service of Elizabeth Klimkowski’s Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure served on August 13, 2008. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 29 A. Evidence Exhibit 13: Elizabeth Klimkowski’s Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure served on August 13, 2008. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢c(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 30 A. Evidence Exhibit 14: Defendant Steven E. Briggs’ Responses to Plaintiff Richard Klimkowski’s First Set of Requests for Admissions. 34 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 O O 0 N N a N n A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) The proffered testimonyis relied upon as “evidence” of Briggs’ alleged negligence and is inadmissible and irrelevant to this Motion; outside the scope ofthis Motion. C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 31 A. Evidence Exhibit 15: Defendant Steven E. Briggs' Responses to Plaintiff Richard Klimkowski's First Set of Form Interrogatories. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) The proffered testimony is relied upon as “evidence” of Briggs’ alleged negligence and is inadmissible and irrelevant to this Motion; outside the scope ofthis Motion. C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 32 A. Evidence Exhibit 16: Curriculum Vitae, Ron J. Anfuso, CPA, ABV, CFF, CDFA, FABFA. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) I 1" 35 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 33 A. Evidence Exhibit 17: DissoMaster™ Reports of Ron J. Anfuso (set to tax years 2012 and 2013) dated 8/24/2018. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion based on lack of causation and damages. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351-352.) Lacks foundation. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢c(d). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 34 A. Evidence Exhibit 18: Reconciliation of Gross Cash Flow to DissoMaster Input. B. Objections) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351— 352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Lacks foundation. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 35 A. Evidence Exhibit 19: Curriculum Vitae, Marshall Waller, Esq. I 36 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A PR OF ES SI ON AL CO RP OR AT IO N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 O O 0 3 O Y W n B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351— 352). C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 36 A. Evidence Exhibit 20: 10-page Duckworth & Mehner Information Inventory. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351- 352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 37 A. Evidence Exhibit 21: 6-page Duckworth & Mehner Information Inventory. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351— 352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled 37 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Objection No. 38 A. Evidence Exhibit 22: Declaration of Glenn R. Mehner filed on April 21, 2014 (first 4 pages only). B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351 352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 39 A. Evidence Exhibit 23: Duckworth & Mehner Litigation Client Job Set-up Sheet dated 6/12/07. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351- 352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢c(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 40 A. Evidence Exhibit 24: Duckworth & Mehner Litigation Client Job Set-up Sheet dated 8/8/07. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351— 352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437c(d). Lack of authentication. 38 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 O o c o N J O y h n B A W N N O N R N N N N N N N = e e e e e s e e e s e s © N N Y N L L A W N = O 0 N N S Y B W N N O (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 41 A. Evidence Exhibit 25: E-mailstring last from Robert Plante dated March 4, 2014 at 7:23 pm. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351- 352). Inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Lacks foundation and personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702(a); § 403, § 405; Code Civ. Proc. section 437¢(d). Lack of authentication. (Evid. Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled Objection No. 42 A. Evidence Exhibit 31: pages 313 through 318 of volume 2 ofthe deposition of Defendant Glenn Mehner for proceedings had November 3, 2017. B. Objection(s) Irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of this Motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 351- 352). The proffered testimony is offered as “proof” of Briggs’ alleged negligence and wrongdoing, which is outside the scope ofthis Motion and inadmissible. I 1 1 1 1 39 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1 N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 HE N O O © ~ ~ O n w n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 || 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. Court’s Ruling Sustained Overruled DATED: September 14, 2018 40 NEMECEK & COLE Attorneys for Defendant STEVEN E. BRIGGS 2008384.1 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION N E M E C E K & C O L E A PR OF ES SI ON AL CO RP OR AT IO N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 H O W O O © 3 O n W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Encino, CA 91436. On September 14, 2018, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF RON ANFUSO AND MARSHALL WALLERAND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFEF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARYADJUDICATION OF ISSUES upon the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: Attorneyfor PlaintiffRichard Klimkowski Attorneysfor Defendants Duckworth and Darryl J. Paul, Esq. Mehner, LLP; and Glenn Mehner Attorney at Law Randall J. Dean, Esq. P.O. Box 3027 Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger 11900 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064-0704 t. 310.207.7722 / £. 310.207.6550 e. rdean(@cgdrblaw.com Dana Point, CA 92629 T. 949.487.7087 / F. 949.481.8003 E. dip@darrylpaul.com (x BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE: I caused the document(s) listed above to be filed and served via the Court’s Electronic Filing System through an approved third- party vendor, and such document(s) were electronically served on the addressee(s) at the email addresses noted above. Executed on September 14, 2018, at Encino, &alifornia. I declare under penalty of perjury under the[laws ofl Statg/of California that the above is true and correct. { LISANHALY 41 DEFENDANT STEVEN E. BRIGGS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSITION2008384.1