Opposition_plaintiffs_response_to_defendants_evidentiary_objectionsResponseCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.May 22, 2018Electronically FILED by Superio 10 11 12 1:3 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 2:3 24 25 26 27 28 Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/18/2019 04:29 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk MICHAEL W. AYOTTE (SBN 145576) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. AYOTTE 2629 Manhattan Avenue, Suite 144 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 343-1864 Email: mayotte@clientfirstlegalsolutions.com Attorney for Plaintiff RALPH M. WATSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RALPH M. WATSON, an individual Plaintiff, Vs. DIET MADISON AVENUE, an unknown entity; JANE DOE 1, an individual; JANE DOE 2, an individual; and DOES 3 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. r N N r N r N w N w N N ew 1 Case No.: BC 707278 [Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. Monica Bachner] PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS [Concurrently filed with Plaintiff’s Combined Opposition to the Defendants’ Motions to Quash Subpoenas; Declarations of Michael W. Ayotte, Ralph M. Watson, Jane Roe and David Baldwin in Support Thereof; and Plaintiffs Opposition to Gordon Rees’ Motions to Quash Subpoenas] Date: February 1, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 71 Action Filed: May 22,2018 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 10 11 12 1:3 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 2:3 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant’s evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s July 28 declaration (in support of his July 30 Ex Parte Application for an Order to Serve Business Record Subpoenas) are improper and must be waived as untimely, given they are being made after the evidence was already considered by this Court, when it granted leave to file the subpoenas in question on July 30, 2018. It is axiomatic that a finding or decision based thereon will not be set aside or reversed based on the erroneous admission of evidence unless a time objection was made prior to the finding or decision. (Evidence Code § 353.) This failure to time object constitutes a waiver of the right to complain about even the erroneous admission of evidence. (Id.; People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 433; see also C.C.P. § 437¢(b)(5) [which provides that “[e]videntiary objections not made at the hearing shall be deemed waived] and § 437c(c) [court must consider all evidence set forth in papers — both admissible and inadmissible — in ruling on motion where no objections were made].) In addition, Plaintiff has provided substantial new evidence as set forth more fully in his Combined Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Quash Subpoenas and his Opposition to Gordon Rees’ Motions to Quash Subpoenas, filed concurrently herein. Dated: January 18, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. AYOTTE a MICHAEL W. AYOTTE By: Attorneys for Plaintiff RALPH M. WATSON 1 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
