Person Most Knowledgable Response to CCP 96 (in CA)

[GreenArrow]

I just received a response to my CCP 96, which included, as a witness: "The Person Most Knowledgeable for [JDB]." What should my response to this be? I read in another post that they objected to the witness.

CCP 96 states "You are requested to serve on the undersigned, within 20 days, a statement of:  the names and addresses of witnesses (OTHER THAN A PARTY WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL) you intend to call at trial;"

I guess this just killed their case, correct?

[sadinca]

They have to identify the witness with more than just "the person most knowlegeable".  You might want to send them meet and confer letter.

 

Dear_[JDB]__

 

Defendant have received Plaintiff's response to the request to identify witnesses and evidence pursuant to CCP section 96.  In response, Plaintiff has stated that it intends to call "The Person Most Knowledgeable for [JDB]".  This response is insufficient under the Code.

 

As CCP 96 specifically states, a responding party must give " the names and addresses of witnesses (OTHER THAN A PARTY WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL) you intend to call at trial".  Plaintiff's response does not identify any witness by name much less give an address.  Please be advised that Defendant intends to object to any witness that Plaintiff attempts to call at trial.

[GreenArrow]

52 minutes ago, sadinca said:

They have to identify the witness with more than just "the person most knowlegeable".  You might want to send them meet and confer letter.

 

Dear_[JDB]__

 

Defendant have received Plaintiff's response to the request to identify witnesses and evidence pursuant to CCP section 96.  In response, Plaintiff has stated that it intends to call "The Person Most Knowledgeable for [JDB]".  This response is insufficient under the Code.

 

As CCP 96 specifically states, a responding party must give " the names and addresses of witnesses (OTHER THAN A PARTY WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL) you intend to call at trial".  Plaintiff's response does not identify any witness by name much less give an address.  Please be advised that Defendant intends to object to any witness that Plaintiff attempts to call at trial.

Thanks! I read in another post that calawyer has a template letter to send them that stated the intent to object to any witness not in the response to the CCP 96. Do you think that either one will be sufficient? What are the chances that they'll dismiss after this? I've never been this far in the process.

Also, I was going to PM you about the objection Word docs that you have (they were coming up with an error when I clicked on them).

[sadinca]

i would send them the one ccp96 objection you posted, it feels more complete. the one i posted is also from Calawyer, just a variation. 

regarding the objections? are you having trouble opening all of them or only a some? 

 

[GreenArrow]

Nice, thank you! I'll go ahead and send that to them.

Yes, I get this error when I try and click on any of them: 

Sorry, there is a problem

This attachment is not available. It may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it to this location.

Error code: 2C171/1

[sadinca]

Object to BILL OF SALE.doc

Object to BUSINESS CARD AGREEMENT.doc

Personal knowledge - TRIAL PREP.doc

Other_Hearsay_Exception.doc

Objection to Affidavit of Indebtedness_redacted.doc

 

 

[GreenArrow]

Awesome, thank you! Sorry to bug you about it, but do you also have your Object to AFFIDAVIT OF SALE.doc too?

[sadinca]

Object to AFFIDAVIT OF SALE.doc

[sadinca]

There are reminder of verbal objections while you are in court. you can also submit written objections along with your trial briefs. let me know if you need those samples too. 

 

[GreenArrow]

32 minutes ago, sadinca said:

There are reminder of verbal objections while you are in court. you can also submit written objections along with your trial briefs. let me know if you need those samples too. 

 

I would appreciate the written objections too, thanks!

[sadinca]

these are titled MIL but you should change them to Defendants Objections to...

MIL No 1 Sample - CCP Declaration.docx

MIL No 2 Sample - Evidence or Witnesses Not Named.docx

MIL No 3 Sample CC Declaration.docx

MIL No 4 Sample - Statements.docx

MIL No 5 Sample-Bill of Sales.docx

[sadinca]

skip the PLEASE TAKE NOTICE portion and begin at the Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 

[GreenArrow]

These are so great, thank you!

[GreenArrow]

@sadinca I mailed the letter to the JDB. Should I wait for a response before filing the MIL? I'm a little less than three weeks from my trial date.

[sadinca]

no need to wait. ccp 96 is very clear, no additional, amended or late statements are permitted.  

 

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-96.html

[GreenArrow]

24 minutes ago, sadinca said:

no need to wait. ccp 96 is very clear, no additional, amended or late statements are permitted.  

 

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-96.html

Nice, thank you

[JDCHATER]

On 8/21/2018 at 11:12 AM, sadinca said:

Defendant have received Plaintiff's response to the request to identify witnesses and evidence pursuant to CCP section 96.  In response, Plaintiff has stated that it intends to call "The Person Most Knowledgeable for [JDB]".  This response is insufficient under the Code.

Hi, in my case, the JDB answered to my CCP96 with the name of their expert witness, (VP John Doe from the OC). Now, only days from trial, their trial brief says they will bring in : the (Most knowledgeable person from the OC as their expert witness.

Should I send them a letter similar to one above or ignore it and object during trial?

[BackFromTheDebt]

14 minutes ago, JDCHATER said:

Hi, in my case, the JDB answered to my CCP96 with the name of their expert witness, (VP John Doe from the OC). Now, only days from trial, their trial brief says they will bring in : the (Most knowledgeable person from the OC as their expert witness.

Should I send them a letter similar to one above or ignore it and object during trial?

1. I am not from California, but it would appear if you have the same situation, you should handle it the same way.

2. I am in banking, with a VP title.  In case they bring in their first witness, VP John Doe, let me explain what that means.  A VP is a mid-level employee at a bank.  In the Big Four, a VP is usually 4-6 levels below the CEO.  In the next tier of banks, a VP is usually 3-5 levels below the CEO.  For example, an assistant bank manager or a senior database programmer would be a VP.  

3. If you have a chance to question the witness, make sure the witness is really from the Line of Business (LOB) that deals with the accounts.  I had an affidavit thrown out by my judge in a different state because the affiant was a "Legal Support Specialist", and not from the LOB.  Someone really knowledgeable about how the account is handled would be able to, for example, mention whether customer data and transaction data are in the same or different database; how long transaction data are stored in the data base; whether transaction and payment data are in the same table or even the same database; what precautions they take making sure the account information is correct for table joins, etc.   

[JDCHATER]

32 minutes ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

Someone really knowledgeable about how the account is handled would be able to, for example, mention whether customer data and transaction data are in the same or different database; how long transaction data are stored in the data base; whether transaction and payment data are in the same table or even the same database; what precautions they take making sure the account information is correct for table joins, etc. 

Oh, OK. VP not Vice President. LOL

Can you write for me 1 or 2 questions for VP John Doe  and tell me what the answer "could" be?. That way I will know if the witness knows what he is talking about. I googled the witness name online and found his resume. He comes from the OC collection department.

Thank you

[BackFromTheDebt]

2 minutes ago, JDCHATER said:

Oh, OK. VP not Vice President. LOL

Can you write for me 1 or 2 questions for VP John Doe  and tell me what the answer "could" be?. That way I will know if the witness knows what he is talking about. I googled the witness name online and found his resume. He comes from the OC collection department.

Thank you

VP is Vice President.  It just means he is most likely a senior collections guy and possibly a manager.  

That tends to make me question whether he is from the Line of Business.  

Meaning, he may know about collecting, but not the processing of accounts.

 

The sort of questions to ask would be:

Are you part of the line of business which handles the active customer account transactions?  If no, then I would raise the issue with the judge that the Plaintiff did not provide a knowledgeable witness.  

The questions I mentioned above, such as are the transactions, payments, and customer data in the same database, and if so in the same table?  and what precautions does the bank take to make sure the proper data are used in table joins between the tables?    -- if he doesn't know the answer, he isn't the most knowledgeable person.  

 

Others -- how are the data used to create a monthly statement?

-- how long are transactions stored in the data base?

-- has there been a transformation of data from one database to another during the history of this account?  If so, what precautions were taken to preserve the integrity of the data?

 

I once worked on a case in which some database programmers did NOT preserve all of the original data transforming data from one database to another.  That was a complete disaster.  

[JDCHATER]

27 minutes ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

Meaning, he may know about collecting, but not the processing of accounts.

Great questions, thanks.

Does the VC suppose to know about identity theft too?

My lawsuit is for 2 different accounts (different years same OC) and the card consumer date of birth is "lightly" different for each account. Since both accounts were sold together and included in the same "electronic file" mentioned in the Bill of Sales, can I ask the expert witness how can the same person open 2 accounts using different dates of birth?

[BV80]

44 minutes ago, JDCHATER said:

Oh, OK. VP not Vice President. LOL

Can you write for me 1 or 2 questions for VP John Doe  and tell me what the answer "could" be?. That way I will know if the witness knows what he is talking about. I googled the witness name online and found his resume. He comes from the OC collection department.

Thank you

If they don’t provide a name and address for you to send a subpoena to the person, they did not comply with CCP 96.  I would follow the advice given by sadinca.  You should point out that they didn’t comply with the rule and object to any witness they bring.  If they don’t bring a witness, again, object and point out they didn’t comply with the rule.  Quote Meza v. Portfolio.

[JDCHATER]

39 minutes ago, BV80 said:

f they don’t provide a name and address for you to send a subpoena to the person, they did not comply with CCP 96

Now that I look at the documents again, I see that the JDB mentioned a John Doe Vice President  for the OC and his address is 5800 S Corporate Place, Sioux Falls, SD 57108.

I think is a BLUFF.

[BV80]

37 minutes ago, JDCHATER said:

Now that I look at the documents again, I see that the JDB mentioned a John Doe Vice President  for the OC and his address is 5800 S Corporate Place, Sioux Falls, SD 57108.

I think is a BLUFF.

Read the rules and case law.  They are supposed to provide you with an address within 150 of the courthouse at which he can be served.

[JDCHATER]

2 hours ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

mention whether customer data and transaction data are in the same or different database; how long transaction data are stored in the data base; whether transaction and payment data are in the same table or even the same database; what precautions they take making sure the account information is correct for table joins, etc.   

I dont know the answers to these question. If I ask them to the witness, as long as he answers " something" ,the judge will think he knows what he is talking about.