Evidence

Extrinsic evidence of trustor’s intent is admissible to shed light on the applicability of the “impossibility limitation” on conditions precedent to dispositions by will or trust. Read More

Defendant-employer was not vicariously liable for an after-work car accident which the defendant’s employee caused while on the phone with another employee, as the call related to personal matters, not work. Read More

The trial court did not err in excluding a non-retained expert’s opinion on causation as it duplicated a retained expert’s more soundly based opinion. Read More

Plaintiff employee was not barred from testifying about her memory of the content of sexually suggestive emails defendant co-worker sent her since the emails themselves had been lost. Read More

A trust may not allow a former trustee to withhold from a successor trustee all communications between that former trustee and the trust’s legal counsel, since the attorney-client privilege vests in the office of the trustee, not in any particular person. Read More

An expert’s declaration that sets forth only the expert’s opinions without the supporting facts and reasoning does not satisfy the moving party’s burden of production on a summary judgment motion; so the motion must be denied even if the opposing party does not object to the expert’s declaration. Read More

An insured plaintiff who received treatment from out-of-network doctors that were not covered by his health insurance should be allowed to introduce the full bills into evidence, similarly to the way a wholly uninsured plaintiff may introduce such bills. Read More

Head of Contractors’ State License Board (a state agency) should not have been compelled to appear for a deposition, since deposing party could not show that he had direct personal factual information pertaining to material issues that could not be obtained from any other source. Read More

The parol evidence rule does not bar admission of oral promises contradicting a writing if offered to prove fraud—even if the party offering the parol evidence does not seek to rescind or otherwise overturn the written agreement. Read More

Denials of requests for admission are not admissible evidence at trial. Read More

Party-selected appraisers are “arbitrators” within the meaning of Evidence Code section 703.5, which renders their testimony inadmissible for most purposes. Read More

A company that operates an employer-review website must cooperate with a grand jury subpoena unless there is evidence that the grand jury’s investigation is being conducted in bad faith. Read More

If the issues in a insurance coverage declaratory relief action overlap the issues in the underlying litigation against the insured, the insurer cannot, over the insured’s objection, take discovery on the overlapping issues or litigate them in the declaratory relief action.   Read More

Trial court properly excluded defense expert’s proposed testimony that plaintiff was under the influence of marijuana at the time of auto accident at issue, since hospital tests did not indicate an active concentration of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) in plaintiff’s blood when he was hospitalized after the accident.   Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing plaintiff to withdraw two mistaken admissions, but assessing him more than $8000 in attorney fees allegedly incurred by defendant as a result of the withdrawn admissions.  Read More

The attorney-work product privilege in documents prepared by a law firm’s employee-attorney while representing the law firm’s client is held by the law firm, not the employee-attorney who prepared the documents.  Read More

Summary judgment for insurer on bad faith claim is reversed due to a triable issue as to whether insurer’s dispute about the claim amount was genuine since the insurer had not updated its medical expert’s opinion based on new evidence of the extent of the insured’s injuries.  Read More

Plaintiff’s experts on the issue of whether defendant’s drug had caused a rare blood cancer should not have been excluded under Daubert, since the experts were highly qualified doctors who based their opinions on their experience with this and similar diseases, medical literature, and similar proper material.  Read More

The psychotherapist-patient privilege may not be raised in opposition to producing patient records in a Medical Board investigation, but to protect the patient’s privacy rights the subpoena must be carefully tailored to request only records that are relevant and material to a compelling state interest, such as avoiding over-prescription of controlled substances. Read More

To reduce a damage award in a medical malpractice case, the defendant may introduce evidence of collateral source payments to plaintiff for medical care including Obamacare and private medical insurance benefits that has already received or likely will receive in the future. Read More