Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02642/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02642-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1 

3:14-cv-2642-L-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT SCHUTZA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

BOB STALL CHEVROLET, a California 

Corporation, and DOES 1-10, 

 Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:14-cv-2642-L-NLS 

ORDER: 

GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE [Doc. Nos. 49, 50] 

DENYING JOINT MOTION TO 

STAY PROCEEDINGS [Doc. 54] 

BACKGROUND 

Schutza claims he patronized Bob Stall without an appointment for the purpose of 

purchasing a Chevrolet Equinox on June 16, 2014. Schutza claims that Mr. Stanley greeted 

him and showed an Equinox. Schutza requested a test drive of an Equinox using temporary 

adaptive hand controls. Mr. Stanley equivocated regarding whether Schutza could test 

drive the vehicle using hand controls but assured Schutza that he would be contacted once 

Stanley found a definitive answer. Mr. Stanley has no memory of speaking with Schutza 

in June of 2014 and could have readily identified Schutza from previous litigation between 

Schutza and Bob Stall. 

Pending before the Court are two motions in limine. The first motion seeks to 

exclude from trial a cell phone log produced by Plaintiff Scott Schutza (“Schutza”) on 

hearsay and relevance grounds. See Doc. No. 49. The second motion seeks to exclude 

Case 3:14-cv-02642-L-NLS Document 55 Filed 05/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
 2 

3:14-cv-2642-L-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from trial a business card of the internet sales manager at Defendant Bob Stall Chevrolet 

(“Bob Stall”), Bob Stanley, on hearsay and relevance grounds. See Doc. No. 50. 

I. CELL PHONE LOG

 Schutza intends to introduce a printed copy of his cell phone log detailing incoming 

and outgoing calls into evidence. Bob Stall contends the cell phone log is inadmissible 

hearsay. Schutza contends that the call log is not hearsay because it is merely a computer 

printout his call history. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 defines hearsay as statement the 

declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing offered to prove the 

truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Nonverbal conduct or 

written assertions qualify as a statement under Rule 801(a). The call log is not hearsay. 

Schutza only intends to use the log at trial to prove the date and time he was called. The 

truth of the matter asserted, i.e. Bob Stall denied Schutza use of temporary hand controls 

for a test drive, is not proved by the call alone. Th existence of the phone call is inextricably 

intertwined with the facts of this case. The content of the phone conversation could be 

hearsay, but Schutza intends to testify regarding the content and will be subject to cross 

examination on that issue. Determining the credibility and truth of Schutza’s testimony is 

left to the jury. The Court reasons that this evidence is reliable as both parties’ records 

prove the call’s existence. As such, the Court denies Bob Stall’s motion in limine on 

hearsay grounds. 

Nonetheless, the Court also agrees with Schutza that the statement meets the 

elements of an opposing party’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) and (D). Under Rule 

801(d)(2)(A), the call log is admissible because it is being offered against Bob Stall and 

was my Bob Stall in an individual or representative capacity. Under Rule 801 (d)(2)(D), 

the call log is arguably admissible as the statement was made by a Bob Stall employee on 

a matter within the scope of the employer-employee relationship and while it existed. 

Therefore, the call log is admissible as an opposing party’s statement pursuant to Fed. R. 

Evid. 801(d)(2). 

Case 3:14-cv-02642-L-NLS Document 55 Filed 05/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
 3 

3:14-cv-2642-L-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Although not raised in the parties’ pleadings, the Court notes that, while the Ninth 

Circuit has held that telephone records are business records for the purposes of Rule 803(6), 

Schutz failed to lay foundation proving the record is kept in the regular course of business. 

See United States v. Linn, 880 F.2d 209, 216 (9th Cir. 1989); see also United States v. 

Miller, 771 F.2d 1219, 1237 (9th Cir. 1985). Notwithstanding, Schutza authenticated the 

call log by highlighting evidence presented by Bob Stall to support a finding that the call 

log is what its claimed to be pursuant to Rule 901(a) and (b)(6)(A). Schutza notes that the 

log “shows a two-minute call on June 16, 2014, at 5:47 p.m.” from a number associated 

with Bob Stall. Doc. 51 at 2. 

As follows, Bob Stall’s relevance contention under Rule 401 fails since the Court 

found that the call log is not hearsay. 

II. BUSINESS CARD

 Schutza intends to introduce Mr. Stanley’s business card to prove that he in fact met 

Mr. Stanley because Mr. Stanley disputes this fact. Bob stall again contends that this 

evidence is hearsay. Schutza contends that the business card and its accompanying 

handwritten notes are exceptions to the hearsay rule as a present sense impression. Rule 

803(1) defines a present sense impression as “[a] statement describing or explaining an 

event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.” The 

business card is hearsay because it is a written assertion offered to prove the truth of the 

matter, i.e., Schutza met Mr. Stanley. Considering Mr. Stanley denies meeting Schutza, 

the Court finds the business card does not satisfy the elements of Rule 803(1) as the 

preprinted information on the card does not describe an event and it is disputed whether a 

meeting in fact occurred which the handwritten notes document. In fact, the Court notes 

that the date Schutza claims he met Mr. Stanley at the dealership is two days after he 

received a phone call from Bob Stall. The Court question the reliability of the handwritten 

notes, and Schutza does nothing to bolster the business card’s reliability. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS Bob Stall’s motion in limine. 

Case 3:14-cv-02642-L-NLS Document 55 Filed 05/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
 4 

3:14-cv-2642-L-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. MOTION TO STAY

The parties filed a joint motion requesting a 60-90 days continuance of all pending 

trial dates due Schutza’s recovery from a medical condition. Specifically, the parties 

represent that any trial-related court dates before June 7, 2019 would be difficult for 

Schutza to attend. After review of the trial management order, the Court finds that the 

current trial-related dates do not conflict with Schutza’s recovery. The only remaining 

court dates in which appearance would be necessary is the trial date of July 16, 2019. To 

the extent Schutza’s medical condition prevents him from appearing for trial, the parties 

should provide evidence of such. Dr. Yuan Liu’s letter does not prove that Schutza cannot 

appear for trial. Accordingly, the Court denies the parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings. 

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Bob Stall’s motions in 

limine as follows: 

 Schutza shall not present the business card with handwritten notes at trial. 

 Schutza is allowed to introduce his cell phone call log under Rule 801. 

 The parties’ joint motion to stay is DENIED. 

 The hearing on motions in limine set for Thursday, May 16, 2019 is 

VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 15, 2019 

Case 3:14-cv-02642-L-NLS Document 55 Filed 05/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4