The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Judge
Present: The Honorable A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephen Montes Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)
Plaintiff Kim Lamie has moved to strike*fn1 the declarations of three witnesses that Defendant Sunflower Staffing, LLC ("SSLLC") submitted in support of its briefing on the arbitration issue. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion to strike.
1. The Court previously struck the declarations of Manette Conlin and Robi Moore because those witnesses were identified only after the close of non-expert testimony. (Dkt. 460). SSLLC could not then, and cannot now, rely on the testimony of those witnesses. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to strike the declarations of those witnesses.
2. SSLLC also failed to timely identify Kim Stryker as a potential witness, and for that reason, Plaintiff has moved to strike her declaration in its entirety. But at the same time, Plaintiff relies on portions of her testimony in her brief. Moreover, the majority of the information contained in the Stryker Declaration is helpful to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court concludes that SSLLC's belated disclosure is harmless in this case and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to strike the entire Stryker Declaration.
3. Plaintiff further objects to particular statements in the Stryker Declaration as speculative, unfounded in personal knowledge, hearsay, lay person opinion testimony, and contrary to the best evidence rule. The Court GRANTS the motion to strike the following statements contained in Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the declaration as inadmissible hearsay and unfounded in personal knowledge:
¶ 17: "Prior to the roll out of the New Agreement, product demonstrators at SSLLC were aware that the Lamie case was pending before this court. In this regard, I am informed that attorneys for the parties in this case had been in contact with product demonstrators before the August 24, 2011 roll out of the New Agreement and product demonstrators were told about the claims in this case[.]"
¶ 18: "[I]t is my understanding that there is and there has been a general awareness of this case by and among product demonstrators who are registered with SSLLC. For example, I have spoken to SSLLC's employees in California and they have reported that there is a general knowledge of the Lamie case among product demonstrators in California at SSLLC for the past year or longer."
4. The remainder of Plaintiff's objections to the Stryker Declaration address testimony that the Plaintiff herself has relied on or that is not relevant to the Court's ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the remainder of Plaintiff's ...