Opinion ID: 2630960
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Court of Appeal's Ruling on the Trial Court's Invocation of the Biljac Procedure in This Case.

Text: The Court of Appeal commented that we believe the Biljac decision was substantially correct, and was surely more nearly correct than its critics have been. The court reasoned that section 437c does not require courts to rule expressly on evidentiary objections; it only requires express objections to be made. Also, without mentioning Ann M. and Sharon P., the Court of Appeal rejected the waiver rule. It held that even if section 437c could be read to require express rulings, it does not mandate that, in the absence of express rulings the underlying objections are forfeited on appeal. Criticizing the waiver rule, the Court of Appeal commented, The fact is that when a party properly brings an objection to the trial court's attentioni.e., when he files it in proper formhe has done everything he can or should be required to do to bring about a ruling. The fact that a trial court does not expressly rule on such objection should not be interpreted as a waiver of the party's objection. Instead, the Court of Appeal concluded that, in the absence of express trial court rulings, the parties may still raise evidentiary issues on appeal. It explained that if the trial court fails to rule expressly on evidentiary objections relating to a summary judgment motion, the court's silence effects an implied overruling of all objections, which are therefore preserved for appeal. The entire record is thus presumptively before the appellate court, and the burden is on the objecting party to show that evidence presumptively considered by the trial court should instead be disregarded in determining the propriety of the order on the merits. The Court of Appeal held that Google's written objections to Reid's evidence were not waived. The court proceeded to decide the merits of the evidentiary objections Google raised on appeal, i.e., whether Reid's statistical and stray remarks evidence was admissible.