Case 5:13-cv-00228-RMW Document 516 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 4

1 SEDGWICK LLP
JAMES S. BROWN, State Bar No. 135810
2 james.brown@sedgwicklaw.com
SEAN PATTERSON, State Bar No. 234565
3 sean.patterson@sedgwicklaw.com
333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
4 San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
Telephone: 415.781.7900
5 Facsimile: 415.781.2635
6 Attorneys for Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
7 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA and BETH
MILLER
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12 ADIL HIRAMANEK AND RODA
HIRAMANEK,
13
PLAINTIFFS,
14
v.
15
L. MICHAEL CLARK, RICHARD LOFTUS,
16 JR., AARON PERSKY, EDWARD MILLS,
DAVID YAMASAKI, TANI CANTIL17 SAKAUYE, SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
18 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,
AND DOES 1 TO 50,
19
DEFENDANTS.
20

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228 RMW PSG

DEFENDANT SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA'S MOTION IN LIMINE (NO. 4)
TO EVIDENCE OF CONTENT OF
UNSUBSTANTIATED WEBSITES
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
Trial:
Time:
Dept:

March 14, 2016

1:30 p.m.
Courtroom 6, 4th Floor

Pretrial
Conference: February 25, 2016
Time:
2:00 p.m.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

82882998v1

5:13-CV-00228 RMW PSG

DEFENDANT SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

Case 5:13-cv-00228-RMW Document 516 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 4

1 I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara ("Superior Court") hereby

3 moves in limine for an order instructing Plaintiffs not to refer to, argue or attempt to introduce any
4 evidence regarding information obtained from any unsubstantiated website or internet post.
5 II.

ANALYSIS & LAW

Plaintiffs have routinely submitted motions in this action in which they have

7 attached internet postings and/or "blogs." Plaintiffs then argue, without any other verifiable or
8 reliable source, that this Court should take judicial notice of such internet postings as evidence that
9 supports their assertions. More troubling is the routine reliance by Plaintiff Adil Hiramanek on
10 "anonymous" and highly inflammatory "blog" postings, which by their nature cannot be
11 authenticated or verified in any reasonable way. 1
12

The most recent example of this tactic is Plaintiff Adil Hiramanek's declaration and request

13 for judicial notice filed on February 10, 2016, which this Court previously ruled was unsolicited
14 and improper. [Dockets # 501, 505.] In his declaration, Plaintiffs asked that this Court take
15 judicial notice of several web pages, including a web posting created just a few days before on
16 February 4, 2016, in which an "anonymous" author cites and misstates recent rulings in this action
17 and implies that Superior Court, Defendant Beth Miller, and their counsel have been found to have
18 committed perjury in this action. [Docket # 501 at 47.] Indeed, this "anonymous" author was
19 even able to obtain frame shots from the videographic record of Ms. Miller's deposition (despite
20 Adil Hiramanek's own recent declaration in which he claimed that he was unable to provide copies
21 of this video to Defendants because the custodian and videographer for this same deposition was
22 travelling out of the state during this same time). [Ibid at 48.] 2
23
24

See e.g., Docket # 486 at 47-56; 501 at 47; 225-2 at 17-33; 225-1 at 65; 458-1 at 53.

See Declaration of Adil Hiramanek filed on February 3, 2016, in which Plaintiff claims that he
cannot obtain additional copies of this same video because the custodian and videographer is
26 currently out of the state: "even if we had the deep pockets to spend significant resources again to
obtain a another set of the videos, that still would take us some time as the videographer is on a
27
vacation tour. Attached and marked as Exhibit D is one of the text messages received from her a
28 few days ago that states I'm driving in the middle of America. No access to anything. [Docket #
25

82882998v1

1
5:13-CV-00228 RMW PSG
DEFENDANT SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

Case 5:13-cv-00228-RMW Document 516 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 4

The law is clear that that judicial notice may only be taken of factual information found on

2 the internet when it is beyond reasonable controversy because it "can be accurately and readily
3 determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid.
4 201(b)(2); Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 555 (D. Md. 2007). Further, this
5 standard is heightened when the internet source for the information is, as here, a source other than
6 a non-governmental website. 3 Further, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 permits the exclusion of
7 even relevant evidence where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
8 unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. For purposes
9 of Rule 403, evidence is unduly prejudicial where it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision
10 on an improper basis. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Case No. C 03-1431
11 SBA, 2006 WL 1627065, *1 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2006); see also United States v. Joetzki, 952 F.2d
12 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 1991).
Given the history of filings in this action, it is almost certain that Plaintiffs will attempt to

13

14 submit evidence in this action that was obtained from various internet postings, including the
15 "anonymous" blogs that show such an affinity for Adil Hiramanek's writing style and personal
16 issues that they seemingly could only have been authored by Hiramenek himself. Such factual
17 information is, by definition, inherently unreliable. Further, even if such information was
18 somehow authenticated by Plaintiffs, it is clearly designed to inflame the jury and would be
19 unduly prejudicial to Defendants. As such, Superior Court requests an order instructing Plaintiffs
20 that they cannot introduce, reference or rely upon any factual information obtained from such
21 internet websites.
22
23 486 at 6, para. 18.]
24
25
26
27
28

See, e.g., Blanks v. Cate, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11233, at * n. 4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013)
(refusing to take judicial notice of a Wikipedia entry); Gonazales v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
861 F.Supp.2d 1099, 1104 n.4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2012)("The Court declines Plaintiff's request to
take judicial notice of the Wikipedia definition of Parkinson's Disease because the internet is not
typically a reliable source of information."); CYBERsitter, LLC v. People's Republic of China, 805
F.Supp. 2d 958, 963-964 (C.D. Cal 2011)(rejecting plaintiff's request for judicial notice of facts
appearing in "statements or images appearing on undated, unverified websites without an
accompanying declaration as to when, where, and how such images or statements were obtained").
82882998v1

-25:13-CV-00228 RMW PSG

DEFENDANT SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

Case 5:13-cv-00228-RMW Document 516 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 4

1 III.

CONCLUSION

For the above stated reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this

3 Motion.
4 DATED: February 16, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

SEDGWICK LLP

By:

7
8
9

/s/ James S. Brown

JAMES S. BROWN
SEAN PATTERSON
Attorneys for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
and BETH MILLER

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
82882998v1

-35:13-CV-00228 RMW PSG

DEFENDANT SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4