Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03533/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03533-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

THOMAS E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN HARRINGTON, PhD, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 12-03533 LB

SECOND ORDER REGARDING

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF Nos. 100, 101]

In support of his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff Thomas

Smith filed three declarations: (1) the declaration of Plaintiff Thomas Smith (ECF No. 94-51); (2) the

declaration of Kathleen Smith (ECF No. 94-3), who purportedly represented Mr. Smith during the

dependency proceedings concerning his daughter; and (3) the declaration of Thomas Moore (ECF

No. 94-4), Mr. Smith’s attorney in this action. Defendants objected to the court considering the

declaration of Kathleen Smith and Exhibits O through QQ (which includes the expert report of

Renee Lamborn) to the declaration of Mr. Moore. On February 9, 2015, the court sustained

Defendants’ objections to the declaration of Kathleen Smith and the expert report of Ms. Lamborn

and ruled that it will not consider those documents when ruling on Defendants’ summary judgment

motion. As for Exhibits O through QQ (excluding the expert report of Ms. Lamborn) to Mr.

Case 3:12-cv-03533-LB Document 104 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Moore’s declaration, the court agreed with Defendants’ arguments that the exhibits were not

properly authenticated and allowed Mr. Smith additional time to do so.

I. EXHIBITS R, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, DD, EE, FF, GG, II, JJ, LL, MM, NN, AND OO

On February 13, 2015, the parties stipulated to the authenticity of seventeen of the disputed

exhibits (Exs. R, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, DD, EE, FF, GG, II, JJ, LL, MM, NN, and OO) for purposes of

Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (Stipulation, ECF No. 100.) This means that Defendants

still object to twelve exhibits. Mr. Smith and Mr. Moore both filed supplemental declarations in an

attempt to properly authenticate those twelve exhibits, and Defendants again objected. (See Supp.

Moore Decl., ECF No. 98; Supp. Smith Decl., ECF No. 99; Second Objection, ECF No. 101; Second

Supp. Widen Decl., ECF No. 101-1.)

II. EXHIBITS Q, S, BB, AND CC

Four of the twelve remaining exhibits (Exs. Q, S, BB, and CC) already have been authenticated. 

Mr. Moore declares that Exhibit Q is the same document that Defendants provided and authenticated

as Exhibit GG to Ms. Widen’s first declaration, so he will withdraw Exhibit Q and rely on Exhibit

GG. (Compare Moore Decl., Ex. Q, ECF No. 94-4 with Widen Decl., Ex. GG, ECF No. 84-3). And

Defendants say that Exhibits S and BB are the same documents that Defendants provided and

authenticated as Exhibits M and Q to Steven Eichman’s declaration, and that Exhibit CC is the same

document that Defendants provided and authenticated as Exhibit FF to Ms. Widen’s first

declaration. (Compare Moore Decl., Exs. S, BB, CC, ECF No. 94-4 with Eichman Decl., Exs. M,

Q, ECF No. 84-2 and Widen Decl., Ex. FF, ECF No. 84-3.) As Defendants have already

authenticated these four documents, and the parties do not appear to dispute that they are the same,

the court may consider them, regardless of which parties relies upon them. See Orr v. Bank of Am.,

NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 776 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We now hold that when a document has been

authenticated by a party, the requirement of authenticity is satisfied as to that document with regards

to all parties, subject to the right of any party to present evidence to the ultimate fact-finder

disputing its authenticity.”).

III. EXHIBITS O, P, T, U, HH, KK, AND PP

Mr. Moore attempts to authenticate seven other exhibits (Exs. O, P, T, U, HH, KK, and PP)

Case 3:12-cv-03533-LB Document 104 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

3

under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4). See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) (authenticity may be

satisfied by the “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive

characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances”); Orr, 285 F.3d at 777 n.24

(under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) “documents attached to an exhibit list in a summary

judgment motion could be authenticated by review of their contents if they appear to be sufficiently

genuine”); see also United States v. One 56-Foot Motor Yacht Named Tahuna, 702 F.2d 1276,

1284-85 (9th Cir. 1983) (authenticating a diary under Rule 901(b)(4) by reviewing and noting its

distinctive contents); Alexander Dawson, Inc. v. NLRB, 586 F.2d 1300, 1302 (9th Cir. 1978) (per

curiam) (“[t]he content of a document, when considered with the circumstances surrounding its

discovery, is an adequate basis for [its authentication]”).

Upon consideration of Rule 901(b)(4) and the parties’ arguments, the court finds that Exhibits O,

P, T, U, HH, KK, and PP have been sufficiently authenticated. The documents identified as Exhibit

O (Wright Elementary School District Speech & Language Screening Reports dated March 5, 2010

and October 13, 2010) were produced by Defendants in discovery, and Mr. Smith declares that he

received them from A.S.’s prior school (Wright Elementary) and gave them to A.S.’s new school

(Proctor Terrace Elementary). The documents also feature Wright Elementary’s letterhead. Exhibit

P (an email chain containing an email from Kim Craven to Nancy Koski, Stephen Mayer, and David

Henneman and an email from Stephen Mayer to an unidentified “Nancy”), which was produced in

discovery by Defendants, contains an email sent by Stephen Mayer from his Santa Rosa City

Schools email address that features a distinctive Proctor Terrace Elementary signature block. 

Exhibit T (a medical record from A.S.’s treating physician, Dr. Hamann, dated February 29, 2012)

features Dr. Hamann’s signature and the letterhead of his medical practice group. Mr. Smith also

declares that he obtained this record from Dr. Hamann and delivered it to the Special Services Office

of Santa Rosa City School District on March 2, 2012. As for Exhibit U (an email from Mr. Smith to

Nancy Koski), Mr. Smith declares that he wrote and sent the email, and Defendants produced it in

discovery. It also features Ms. Koski’s Santa Rosa City Schools email address. Exhibit HH (Mr.

Mayer’s handwritten notes from telephone calls) was produced in discovery by Defendants, and Mr.

Mayer confirmed during his deposition that they are in fact his notes. Exhibit PP (a letter from

Case 3:12-cv-03533-LB Document 104 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Debra Sanders to Mr. Smith dated May 29, 2012) features the Santa Rosa City Schools letterhead,

and Mr. Smith declares that the letter was sent to him after he met with Ms. Sanders regarding his

daughter and that Ms. Sanders told him that she would send him the information that is contained in

the letter. 

Defendants point out that some of the documents do not appear to be complete, but they cite no

authority for the proposition that this means that incomplete documents cannot be deemed authentic. 

They also point out that while they produced five of these documents (Exhibits O, P, U, HH, and

KK) to Ms. Smith in discovery, they did not produce them as what Mr. Smith says they are. Instead,

they produced them simply as communications relating to A.S. or Mr. Smith. Nevertheless, the

court may still take into account the context surrounding the production of the documents and the

contents of the documents when determining whether the documents have been sufficiently

authenticated under Rule 901(b)(4). 

Defendants also argue that Exhibit T (the medical record from A.S.’s treating physician, Dr.

Hamann, dated February 29, 2012) is hearsay. This record, however, likely could be supported with

a declaration from Dr. Hamann making clear that the record is a statement made for medical

diagnosis or treatment, see Fed. R. Evid. 803(4), or with a custodial declaration making clear that the

record is a record of a regularly conducted activity, see Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Mr. Smith may

attempt to do so by presenting such a declaration or declarations at the hearing on Defendants’

summary judgment motion. 

Defendants further argue that the court should not consider Exhibit PP because Mr. Smith did

not previously produce it in his initial disclosures or in response to Defendants’ request for

production of documents. Defendants, however, fail to show that the document was responsive to

any of their document requests or that Mr. Smith did not describe in his initial disclosures a category

of documents in which Exhibit PP falls. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) (requiring a party to

include in its initial disclosures “a copy—or a description by category and location—of all

documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its

possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would

be solely for impeachment”) (emphasis added). 

Case 3:12-cv-03533-LB Document 104 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

5

IV. EXHIBIT QQ

The final exhibit is Exhibit QQ. Mr. Moore declares that it is a certified transcript of the

video/audio testimony of George Valenzuela to the Santa Rosa City School Board on December 12,

2012. He attempts to authenticate it under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) and also Rule

901(b)(5). See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) (authenticity may be satisfied by the “appearance, contents,

substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all

the circumstances”); 901(b)(5) (authenticity may be shown through “[a]n opinion identifying a

person’s voice—whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or

recording—based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the

alleged speaker”). Mr. Smith declares that upon learning that meetings of the Santa Rosa School

Board are recorded, he requested a copy of the video/audio recording of the December 12, 2012

board meeting from the company that records the meetings, C Media. He received a copy of the

recording from C Media, and watched it. Based on his prior face-to-face meetings with Mr.

Valenzuela and attending his deposition, Mr. Smith declares that the person in the video in fact is

Mr. Valenzuela. Mr. Moore also declares that, based on having deposed Mr. Valenzuela, the person

in the video in fact is Mr. Valenzuela. Mr. Smith also declares that he had the audio from the video

transcribed by a certified court reporter. 

Defendants make a number of arguments, none of which succeed. As to the transcript’s

authenticity, Defendants argue that Mr. Smith has not shown that C Media made a reliable recording

of the board meeting. They say that Mr. Smith did not obtain the recording through a subpoena and

did not submit the testimony or evidence from the custodian or records for C Media establishing the

manner or accuracy of the recording. The court is not persuaded. The court believes that Mr.

Smith’s and Mr. Moore’s declarations sufficiently establish the authenticity of the recording and

transcript and that it is in fact Mr. Valenzuela who spoke. Through the recording, Mr. Smith and

Mr. Moore not only could hear what Mr. Valenzuela said, they could see him say it. 

Defendants also argue that the court should not consider the transcript because Mr. Smith did not

produce the video or the transcript in his initial disclosures or in response to Defendants’ request for

production of documents. Once again, however, Defendants, fail to show that the document was

Case 3:12-cv-03533-LB Document 104 Filed 03/11/15 Page 5 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

6

responsive to any of their document requests or that Mr. Smith did not describe in his initial

disclosures a category of documents in which the video or transcript falls.

 Defendants further argue that any statements made by Mr. Valenzuela are hearsay. Mr.

Valenzuela is a Defendant to this action, however, and his statements are offered against him. It is

not hearsay. See Fed. Evid. Code § 801(d)(2). 

Finally, Defendants argue that the court should not consider the transcript because it would

violate the “best evidence rule.” See Fed. R. Civ. 1002. That rule provides that “[a]n original

writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a

federal statute provides otherwise.” Here, Mr. Smith seeks to prove the content of the recording

made of the board meeting. The recording, therefore, is the best evidence of its own content. See

United States v. Workinger, 90 F.3d 1409, 1415 (9th Cir. 1996). Mr. Moore, however, declares that

he can provide a copy of the actual recording if asked. The court will allow him to do so at the

hearing on Defendants’ summary judgment motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:12-cv-03533-LB Document 104 Filed 03/11/15 Page 6 of 6