Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland, 16-cv-07014-VC. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180516c75
Visitors: 16
Filed: May 15, 2018
Latest Update: May 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . Both sides have made numerous evidentiary objections to the materials submitted at trial. This order disposes of those objections: • All objections to testimony or documents not cited in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed May 15, 2018 are denied as moot. • All materials that the relevant Oakland officials have declared were received by the City on or before June 27, 2016 are deemed part of the record, and the
Summary: ORDER RE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . Both sides have made numerous evidentiary objections to the materials submitted at trial. This order disposes of those objections: • All objections to testimony or documents not cited in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed May 15, 2018 are denied as moot. • All materials that the relevant Oakland officials have declared were received by the City on or before June 27, 2016 are deemed part of the record, and the ..
More
ORDER RE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
Both sides have made numerous evidentiary objections to the materials submitted at trial. This order disposes of those objections:
• All objections to testimony or documents not cited in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed May 15, 2018 are denied as moot.
• All materials that the relevant Oakland officials have declared were received by the City on or before June 27, 2016 are deemed part of the record, and the plaintiff's objection to the contrary is overruled. See Dkt. No. 222.
• All of the plaintiff's remaining objections to materials cited in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are denied as moot.
• The defendants make a blanket objection to the consideration of documents and testimony that were not part of the record before the City Council in connection with its consideration of the resolution and ordinance at issue in this case. This objection is overruled. As explained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, materials not part of the City Council record are less central to the adjudication of the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, but they remain relevant to the extent they assist the Court in its assessment of the record before the City Council.
• The defendants make hearsay objections to the use of two studies relating to the AP-42 guidance by one of the plaintiff's experts. These objections are overruled because experts may use and rely on hearsay to form their opinions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
