New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Internet Evidence — Adversary’s Website Admissible as Party Admission and For Impeachment Purposes

Download PDF

San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. ABB, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157346 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016):

Plaintiffs San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDG&E") and those certain underwriters at Lloyds of London ("Underwriters") subscribing to policy numbers DG 103412 and DG 103712 (collectively "Plaintiffs"), have filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleging negligence, strict product liability, breach of express warranty, and breach of contract. See Doc. No. 4. Defendants ABB, Inc. ("ABB") and ABB Power T&D Company, Inc. ("ABB Power," collectively "Defendants") move for partial summary judgment of Plaintiffs' claims. [*2]  See Doc. No. 15. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants' motion, to which Defendants replied. See Doc. Nos. 21, 25. The Court found the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.

***

Factual Background

This action arises out of an incident which occurred at Plaintiffs' power facility located in Bonita, California. This facility is known as the San Miguel substation, which provides power to San Diego residents. On February 14, 2013, one of the facility's transformers3 (the "subject transformer") ignited and caused substantial damage to Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs attribute the incident to an allegedly [*3]  defective transformer bushing ("subject bushing") sold by ABB, and installed by ABB Power. Plaintiffs seek more than $7 million in damages.

3   A transformer assists in the distribution of electricity by transforming voltage and current levels of electricity to enable distribution of power between electrical grids. Doc. No. 25-2 at 2. A bushing forms the terminal that connects the transformer windings from the input to the output between the electrical grid. Id. at 3.

***

Discussion

I. Defendants' Evidentiary Objections

As an initial matter, Defendants object to evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in opposition to Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Doc. No. 25-3. Defendants raise fourteen objections to four different declarations. See id. Each declaration, and Defendants' objections thereto, will be considered in turn.

**

C. Declaration of James Baker (April 4, 2016)

Defendants list four objections to James Baker's declaration. Defendants object to Exhibit A, which contains a printout of a portion of the ABB website on the basis of hearsay, lack of authentication, and lack of foundation. Exhibit A, however, is admissible as an admission of a party opponent. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Exhibit A is also admissible to impeach Defendants. Moreover, Mr. Baker provides the requisite authentication and foundation for Exhibit A. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' objection number 7.

Defendants' three other objections to Mr. Baker's declaration seek to exclude various portions of the declaration on the basis of the parol evidence rule and the secondary evidence rule. The Court SUSTAINS objections numbered 8-10. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1856; Fed. R. Evid. 1004.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice