Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 10, 2018

© 00 NI O N wn BA W N == N N N N N NN NN N N e m e m e m e m p m e m e m e m co J a N nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R A W = O Henry A. Peacor, Esq. (SBN 302676) Stephen A. King, Esq. (SBN 224683) Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley, LLP ELE CTHONICALLY FILED 2 Uperiar i 407 Bryant Cir, Ste F ERunN of Drsmg Ojai, CA 93023-4228 — Telephone: (805) 272-4001 02/27/2019 at 03:52:00 FM Fax number: (805) 719-6858 es Clete eo tee Attorneys for Plaintiff, MONTY MILLER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE —- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MONTY MILLER, an Individual Case No.: 30-2018-00966203-CU-PA-CXC Plaintiff. Judge: Hon. Ronald L. Bauer ’ Dept: CX-103 vs: PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ALL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE AND VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT JESUS SANCHEZ, an Individual; GREG MCGRENDAL, an Individual; KILTER TERMITE & PEST CONTROL, a business organization, form unknown and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Complaint Filed: January 10, 2018 Trial Date: March 4, 2019 Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiff MONTY MILLER hereby submits the following Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude all photographs of the accident scene and vehicles involved in the accident. Defendants make the misguided blanket argument that because liability is admitted, the photographs of the accident scene and vehicles involved is automatically irrelevant. Defendants ignore the fact that causation for plaintiff’s injuries and the extent of plaintiff’s injuries are the issues at the crux of the case. I 1 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 © 00 NI O N wn BA W N == N N N N N NN NN N N e m e m e m e m p m e m e m e m co J a N nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R A W = O The photographs of the accident scene and vehicles involved in the accident are relevant to show the facts and circumstances surrounding the very incident that gives rise to this action and the analysis of this evidence is highly probative and helpful in determining causation. The photographs of the vehicles involved in the accident are relevant to show the extent of physical damage to the vehicles and can assist the trier of fact in determining extent of injury. The photographs of the accident scene and vehicles involved in the accident are relevant to show the type of collision that occurred; namely, a head-on collision. Simply stating that Defendants admit liability is not enough. Rather, it naturally gives rise to the question: “admit liability for what?” And the photographs of the accident scene and vehicles involved in the accident help to answer that question. In nearly every automobile collision case, vehicle property damage photos are useful evidence, as are property damage estimates. This case is no different. This is an absolutely typical example of an auto v. auto case where evidence of vehicle damage is relevant and admissible to show the nature and type of collision to the jury. Moreover, it is well settled that demonstrative evidence is admissible for the purpose of illustrating and clarifying a witness’s testimony. People v. Kynetter, 15 Cal.2d 731, 755; St. George v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. App.2d 815, 816; see also Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) § 642, p.604. Because demonstrative evidence is used to illustrate testimony, it is generally authenticated by the witness whose testimony is being illustrated. That witness will usually identify salient features of the exhibit and testify that it fairly and accurately reflects what he or she saw or heard on a particular occasion, such as the location of damage to vehicles following an automobile accident. 1 1 11 I I I 1 2 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 OO 0 9 O N Wn BA W N = N N N N N NN NN N N e m e m e m e m p m e m e m e m co J a N nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R A W = O “Relevant evidence” means evidence — including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant — having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fat that is of consequence to the determination of the action. Evidence Code Section 210. For these reasons, Mr. Miller asks this Court to deny Defendants’ motion in limine No. 1 to exclude photographs of the accident scene and vehicles involved in the accident. DATED: February 27, 2019 CARP ENTE R, ZUCKERMAN &ROWLEY By: —{ \ 4 AAC [ENRY A. Er ES Attorneys for Plaintiff, MONTY MILLER 3 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] ]ss. COUNTY OF VENTURA ] I am employed in the County of Ventura, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 407 Bryant Circle, Suite F, Ojai, California 93023. On February 27, 2019 i served the foregoing document(s) described as PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ALL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE AND VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT, on all interested parties in this action as set forth on the attached service list as follows: X BY MAIL: I placed a true copy of the above captioned documents in a sealed envelope addressed as shown above. I deposited such envelope in the mail at Ojai, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. a BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: By sealing the envelope and placing it for collection and overnight delivery in a box regularly maintained by an overnight delivery service with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance with ordinary business practices. Ol BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to counsel for defendants. X BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER/VIA FACSIMILE: I caused all of the pages of the above-entitled document(s) to be sent to the recipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the respective telephone numbers indicated above. a BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, I caused said document(s) to be delivered via electronic mail to the addressee(s) set forth on the attached service list. X STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on February 27, 2019 at Ojai, California. & JANIS A\VERDUGO 4 NAME OF DOCUMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MONTY MILLER v. JESUS SANCHEZ, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-00966203-CU-PA-CXC SERVICE LIST Jack M. Liebhaber, Esq. Michael Yerzinkyan, Esq. RAFFALOW BRETOI & ADAMS 14724 Ventura Boulevard Suite 905 Encino, California. 91403 Attorneys for Defendants, JESUS SANCHEZ, GREG MCKENDALL (erroneously sued and served as GREG MCGRENDAL) and KILTER TERMITE & PEST CONTROL Telephone: (866) 436-7287 Facsimile: (877) 389-1093 Email: jliebhaber@mercuryinsurance.com myerzinkyan@mercuryinsurance.com 5 NAME OF DOCUMENT