Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05881/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05881-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

ORDER (No. 3:14-cv-005881-LB) 

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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

MANOJ RIJHWANI, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:13-cv-05881-LB 

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO 

EXHIBITS 

[Re: ECF No. 97] 

The court held a further pretrial conference on September 28, 2015, regarding Wells Fargo 

Bank’s objections to the Rijhwanis’ exhibits. (See Objections, ECF No. 97.)1

 Through the meetand-confer process that the court ordered (see ECF Nos. 87 at 5 and 109), the parties narrowed 

their disputes. For the reasons stated on the record and below, the court rules as follows on the 

remaining objections. 

I. APPRAISALS

The exhibits are 9, 13, 25, 36, 70, 107, 124, 150, 182, 187, 194, 225, 267, and 273. The 

appraisals were included in document productions made by the bank in response to document 

requests that were represented on the record to be requests for “any and all documents” in the 

bank’s possession regarding the subject property. The court ruled, without objection (and with 

 

1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents. 

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 114 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-05881-LB) 

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 

Northern District of California 

agreement) by the plaintiffs that appraisals after the foreclosure are not relevant. The parties each 

have their experts for damages. 

As to the remaining appraisals, they were produced in discovery by Wells Fargo Bank. The 

court concludes that they are authentic, at least insofar as the plaintiffs seek to show that they are 

records in Wells Fargo Bank’s files relevant to the subject property. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) (‘the 

proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the 

proponent claims it is”); see Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 777 & n. 20 (9th Cir. 

2002) (citing Maljack Prods., Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp., 81 F3d 881, 889 n.12 (9h 

Cir. 1996) (documents produced in discovery were deemed authentic when offered by the partyopponent)); Wright & Gold, 31 Federal Practice & Procedure: Evidence § 7105 at 39 

(“Authentication can also be accomplished through judicial admissions such as . . . production of 

items in response to . . . [a] discovery request.”). 

That said, on this record, the documents are admissible only to show that the information was 

in Wells Fargo Bank’s files, and not for the truth of the matters asserted in the appraisals. The 

court has no basis for concluding that they are business records or otherwise are not hearsay. The 

plaintiffs nonetheless may try to establish any further foundation through Wells Fargo Bank 

witnesses. The court further rules that any appraisal must be tethered to the time frame for a 

particular loan modification. (That is why the court excluded post-foreclosure appraisals.) 

II. EXHIBIT 14

The plaintiffs withdrew the exhibit. 

III. EXHIBIT 30: CHECKLIST

Again, to the extent that Wells Fargo Bank produced it, the court deems it as authenticated as a 

Wells Fargo Bank document. Its relevance is not apparent without tethering it to a witness’s 

testimony or something more than the document’s existence. The court thus needs to rule on its 

admissibility in the context of the trial. 

IV. “FOR PROCESS” NOTES

An example is Exhibit 138. For the reasons stated on the record, these documents are deemed 

authenticated as Wells Fargo Bank documents in Wells Fargo’s files. That said, as discussed on 

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 114 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-05881-LB) 

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 

Northern District of California 

the record, some portions are attributable to third parties and are hearsay. The court has no 

foundation to conclude that they are business records (but the plaintiffs may be able to establish 

that through Wells Fargo’s witnesses). The plaintiffs may be able to establish that some parts are 

party admissions. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). 

V. EMAIL CHAIN 

This is Exhibit 151. (Exhibit 149 is a duplicate.) For the reasons stated on the record, this is 

admissible as a party admission. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). 

VI. LETTERWRITER EXHIBITS

These are exhibits 155, 170, 190, and 217. Again, these are authenticated to the extent that 

they are what they purport to be: documents from Wells Fargo Bank’s files. That said, the 

plaintiffs will need to establish the foundation for their admissibility as (for example) business 

records or party admissions (as opposed to drafts, which they might well be on their face). 

VII. ANNUAL REPORTS 

These are exhibits 291 to 300. On their face, for the reasons stated on the record, the court 

cannot discern their relevance but will not preclude the plaintiffs from establishing relevance at 

trial (though the court observes that the so-called admissions are tangential and not tethered to the 

claims in this litigation, and the financial information is not limited to Wells Fargo Bank and 

appears excludable under Federal Rule of Evidence 403). The court overrules objections as to 

authenticity: the documents are Wells Fargo Bank’s annual reports, and nothing suggests any 

reason to dispute their authenticity. 

VII. DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS 

The plaintiffs will narrow the designations and email them to counsel. The court will address 

objections on Wednesday morning, September 30, 2015, at 8:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 28, 2015 ______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 114 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 3