Evidence revealed during the course of the Wrongful Death action

[1&2&3]

Just checking in to see what the latest is.

Interesting to see that the one who argues so against this case was POSITIVE it would be thrown out long before now, December 2016. Yet it is still an active case!

The judge must hear evidence and responses to keep this trial active.

Wishing each of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! :christmastree::christmastree:

 

[LuckyLucy2]

^ The Judge had to let the case go forward because the Zahaus finally got the complaint worded correctly after eight attempts.

At the Summary Judgement the Judge will look at all of the depositions and the evidence. It is clear from Mary Zahau's deposition that there is no evidence whatsoever against the Defendents - only Mary's twisted and delusional hate for Dina, based on what Rebecca told her, which probably was not true since Rebecca seemed to constantly lie.

The Zahaus imagined accusations will never stand up to the concrete evidence that proved Rebecca hung herself.

In fact, I bet no one posting for the Zahaus can give me ANY evidence that has been uncovered during these proceedings, can they?

 

[screecher]

^ The Judge had to let the case go forward because the Zahaus finally got the complaint worded correctly after eight attempts.

At the Summary Judgement the Judge will look at all of the depositions and the evidence. It is clear from Mary Zahau's deposition that there is no evidence whatsoever against the Defendents - only Mary's twisted and delusional hate for Dina, based on what Rebecca told her, which probably was not true since Rebecca seemed to constantly lie.

The Zahaus imagined accusations will never stand up to the concrete evidence that proved Rebecca hung herself.

In fact, I bet no one posting for the Zahaus can give me ANY evidence that has been uncovered during these proceedings, can they?

I can and will. One 'twin' admitted to being there, the other lied and said she was at Rady. Evidence lulu.

 

[screecher]

Oh, and all the evidence the 'twin', who abhored Rebecca, is a lying, delusional, hate filled scorned spouse.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Nina was there at 9:45 -10:00 pm on Tuesday night. Rebecca's suicide was sometime between 1:00 and 3:00 am Wednesday morning, when Dina was at Rady's. Both facts, we have known for many years. I asked for any evidence uncovered during the 1123 days this case has been in court. There is NONE.

Even if Dina disliked Rebecca, that does not equate to murder. but it sounds to me like it was Rebecca who abhorred Dina, considering she called Carolyn Niles to trash Dina just hours after Max was admitted to the ICU. That really shows what type of person she was.

I think it was Rebecca who was a "lying, delusional, hate-filled, scorned" girlfriend and she proved that with her angry, bizarre suicide aimed at hurting the family of the little boy fatally injured on her watch.

 

[K_Z]

Two new documents on the SD ROA:

483 12/12/2016 Statement - Other (RE Discovery Dispute RE Responses to First and Second Sets of Discovery) filed by Shacknai, Adam. Shacknai, Adam (Defendant) RE Discovery Dispute RE Responses to First and Second Sets of Discovery

482 12/08/2016 Minutes finalized for Ex Parte heard 12/08/2016 08:45:00 AM. Minute Order

Will have these posted in the usual place. The minute order is brief and just continues the ex-parte to Dec 13, advising the parties that if they resolve their discovery dispute before that (the discovery dispute is the source of the 3 recent ex-parte meetings), then they are to notify the court.

The other is 11 pages, related to interrogatories.

The case marches on, 1125 days thus far. June 23 is the trial date, but I expect that to change a few more times as we get closer.

I continue to be so impressed with the plaintiffs, and how dignified, respectful, and long-suffering they have been with this long lawsuit process. Rebecca's family has suffered so much, and been the target of so much hate. I'm glad they have Keith Greer on their side. I'm glad there are still so many people following this case and supporting the Zahau family! :tyou::grouphug:

 

[K_Z]

New entries on the SD ROA following the ex-parte meeting Tuesday, Dec 13. It appears the parties have resolved the discovery issues! Moving closer to June 23, 2017 Trial date.

486 12/13/2016 Minutes finalized for Ex Parte heard 12/13/2016 08:45:00 AM. Minute Order

485 12/13/2016 Motion Hearing (Civil) set for 5/5/20017 at 11:00AM vacated.

Document will be posted in the usual place.

A few sentences from the Minute Order (#486):

Now being the time previously set for a continued Discovery Meet and Confer scheduled by defendant Dina Shacknai, counsel and/or parties appear as noted above and the hearing commences.

Parties inform the Court that they have made progress, but defendant would like to get a motion scheduled.

The Court trails the matter to allow counsel to further meet and confer.

The Court is again in session, with counsel present as noted above.

Counsel state they believe they have resolved the discovery issues.

Upon inquiry of the Court regarding a hearing on May 5, 2017, Attorney Braun states that the hearing was advanced to January and may be vacated.

The Motion Hearing (Civil) set for 5/5/20017 at 11:00AM is vacated.

Updated list of Future Events:

Future Events

Event Date Event Time Location Event Type

01/06/2017 11:00 AM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil)
02/10/2017 11:00 AM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil)
05/19/2017 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
05/19/2017 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
05/19/2017 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
06/02/2017 10:30 AM C-69 Trial Readiness Conference (Civil)
06/23/2017 08:40 AM C-69 Civil Jury Trial

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

 

[Sharyne]

New entries on the SD ROA following the ex-parte meeting Tuesday, Dec 13. It appears the parties have resolved the discovery issues! Moving closer to June 23, 2017 Trial date.



Document will be posted in the usual place.

A few sentences from the Minute Order (#486):




Updated list of Future Events:



https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

Thank you for the newest information. But I can't seem to find the above in red. The Stickey thread where Bessie posted others has not been updated that I can tell.
Could you please give me a link to the usual place. TIA

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Here are the latest court documents. It is easy to see just how much the Zahaus and Keith Greer are abusing the court system because they have no evidence for their claims.


(BBM)


ROA 477
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...A-477_12-07-16_Minute_Order_1481754663121.pdf

Neil Nalepa did not appear for his court ordered deposition, and Dina is going to seek a Motion for Sanctions for Failure of Neil Nalepa to appear at deposition.

Why would Neil not want to tell what he knows about RZ? He spoke with her just 2 weeks before her suicide, and knew her very well. If he is not trying to hide something about her, why would he not give a deposition?

ROA 478

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...413f/37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL_ROA-478_12-07
16_of_Adam_Shacknai_RE_Discovery_Dispute_RE_Plaintiff_1481754663197.pdf

This is the second discovery conference regarding Plaintiffs' responses to Defendant Adam Shacknai's first and second sets of written discovery, yet Plaintiffs have still failed to satisfy their discovery obligations. While some of the plaintiffs in this case have supplemented certain of their written responses to Mr. Shacknai's first set of discovery served almost five months ago (July 15, 2016), they continue to stand on their objections with respect to discovery targeted at the allegations in the complaint, including the damages being claimed, among other things. Likewise, only one Plaintiff provided some responses to the second set of requests for production of documents and special interrogatories. All other responses have been objections only, including Plaintiffs' collective responses to the second set of requests for admission and form interrogatories. In short, this in insufficient and unacceptable. At this stage of the litigation, experts have been disclosed. Therefore, there is no reason that Plaintiffs should not or cannot be able to respond to discovery. It makes no sense for the defendants to start deposing Plaintiffs' experts before receiving adequate written discovery responses from the Plaintiffs themselves. But as the situation currently stands, that is likely to happen. Therefore, Mr. Shacknai intends to file one or more motions to compel on or before the current deadline to do so (December 23 for most
of the responses) and so asks the Court to set the first available, code-compliant hearing date (i.e., the first date available after January 20).

In November 15, 2016, the parties served their expert disclosures. Id. ¶ 18. In total, the parties identified 17 retained experts. Id. Plaintiffs designated nine, Adam Shacknai designated six, and Dina Shacknai an additional two experts.3 Id. It is anticipated that Plaintiffs will propose deposition dates for their experts no later than December 9—and it is anticipated that those depositions will take place in January at the earliest. The parties' supplemental expert disclosures—if any—are due December 9.

It has been almost five months since Mr. Shacknai served his first set of discovery. The limited supplemental responses that have been provided were served on the same date as the expert disclosures. There is no reason why Plaintiffs cannot have supplemented their written discovery responses to finally reveal the basis for the allegations in the complaint. Similarly, there is no reason why—almost three-and-half years into the litigation—Plaintiffs cannot provide information about the $15.1 million in damages they seek.

With respect to the second set of discovery, Plaintiffs have had it for almost three months. Mr. Shacknai has done nothing more than ask further questions going to Plaintiffs' alleged damages and/or other affirmative claims they have made in this case. Yet, for the most part, Plaintiffs have provided nothing more than objections-only responses.

Enough is enough. The Court should set a hearing date on the seemingly inevitable motions to compel. With a filing date of December 23, per Code, the motions can be heard any date January 20 or thereafter.

Why won't the Zahaus answer Adam's interrogatories? Judge Bacall has already ordered them to answer Dina's interrogatories once before in this case. They know the Judge will order them to answer these as well, and will set the Summary Judgement date back. They are the ones that brought this case to court. Why won't they answer?

ROA 483
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Responses_to_First_and_Sec_1481752757349.pdf

...Mr. Shacknai requests that the Court set a deadline for all Plaintiffs to serve verified discovery responses to all outstanding discovery. Separately, Mr. Shacknai asks the Court to set a hearing date to the extent a motion to compel is necessary given the impending case deadlines.

...As but one example, each of the Plaintiffs was asked to “State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that Adam Shacknai, Dina Shacknai and Nina Romano ‘entered in to a conspiracy and common scheme to murder DECEDENT and hide their involvement,' alleged in paragraph 23 of YOUR Second Amended Complaint.” Other than myriad boilerplate objections, Plaintiffs' response is: “Responding Party bases this allegation on the fact that on the early morning of July 13,2011, Rebecca Zahau was murdered, all defendants were at the Spreckels Mansion that evening, had a strong motive to kill Rebecca and actively participated in the conspiracy to murder Rebecca by committing one or more of the acts that led to her death. Discovery is continuing.”

Simply, this is non-responsive. And for the most part, Plaintiffs' responses to the other requests seeking information about the allegations in the SAC are no more informative. If Plaintiffs have no evidence—circumstantial or otherwise—that supports the allegations in the SAC, Mr. Shacknai is entitled to know that.

Particularly at this stage of the case—which has been pending in federal or state court for almost 3½ years—Plaintiffs either have identified the circumstantial support the allegations in the SAC or they have not. Either way, Mr. Shacknai is entitled to know.

It seems that a motion to compel as to these discovery requests should not be necessary. But if it is, so be it. And if it is, Mr. Shacknai asks that the Court provide a hearing date for the motion to compel.

A Motion to compel should not be necessary, however, the Zahaus have no answers to their allegations, since the allegations were all made up, so they have no answers to give.

ROA 486
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...A-486_12-13-16_Minute_Order_1481752757443.pdf

Now being the time previously set for a continued Discovery Meet and Confer scheduled by defendant Dina Shacknai, counsel and/or parties appear as noted above and the hearing commences.

Parties inform the Court that they have made progress, but defendant would like to get a motion scheduled.

The Court trails the matter to allow counsel to further meet and confer.

The Court is again in session, with counsel present as noted above.

Counsel state they believe they have resolved the discovery issues.

Why does Dina have to go so far as to have to ask Judge Bacall for a motion order to get what she needs from the Zahaus?

 

[Mollyandme]

Whatever was said, will be regarded by the court as "hearsay" and "opinion", and will not be admissible as evidence of anything WRT this civil wrongful death lawsuit, IMO.

What exactly about that statement could possibly be relevant to proving that Dina, Nina, and Adam are not responsible for Rebecca's death/ murder?

Nothing at all, IMO.

It's utterly irrelevant to whether Dina, Nina, and Adam are responsible for Rebecca's death/ murder. Just another attempt to smear a woman dead in her grave, who has no opportunity to rebut.

Just because an ex husband has an "opinion" about "something" related to his ex-wife in her new relationships, doesn't mean it's "true", or "relevant", or "evidence". (lol!)

This post is solely to address Neil Nalepa and the admissibility of anything he might say during his deposition. It's actually false to assume that whatever he says will not be admissible as evidence of anything regarding the civil WDS.

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, and one of several that stand out to me in this case, according to California law, is article 5. statements of mental or physical state [1250-1253]:

1251. Evidence of a statement of the declarents state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation (including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health) at a time prior to the statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if:

A) declarent is unavailable as a witness (RZ would be considered declarents even if nn were being deposed or testifying in court bc in terms of hearsay, the declarent is the one who makes an out of court statement, so bc RZ is deceased, if NN was discussing anything she told him, RZ is the declarent); and

B) the evidence is offered to prove such prior state of mind, emotion, physical sensation when it is itself an issue in the action and the evidence is not offered to prove any fact other than such state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation.

Because RZ's death is ruled a suicide, which the Zahau's are fighting with this WDS, prior state of mind and emotion are obviously main issues in the action, so I would not dismiss anything he states in his deposition, where many of these things will likely be asked, as automatically being hearsay and inadmissible.

The judge will have the final say but from what I have researched, if anything in his deposition is relavent to an issue in the civil case that meets the hearsay exceptions (there are many I just posted one) if this goes to trial, it would be likely that he would be called to testify on some issues, history, etc, but maybe not all depending on the judge.

Link: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

 

[Mollyandme]

If you think you're harming the deceased victim or the case against the defendants with these kinds of posts, you're sorely mistaken. Number one, Rebecca's DECEASED - she can no longer be hurt. Number two, no one reading here or anywhere will be convinced of anything more than that *someone* seems to be obsessed with Rebecca and her relationships with men. The only people who will find this "information" you provide useful, will be the defense. Clearly *someone* had a major ax to grind with Rebecca.

I read here and believe it was suicide. I'm not sure why those of us who believe this was suicide are ganged up on. Because I don't think Dina, Nina, or Adam had anything to do with RZ's death, In my eyes they are victims as well, Dina lost her son. I feel bad for all involved. Jmo

 

[K_Z]

This post is solely to address Neil Nalepa and the admissibility of anything he might say during his deposition. It's actually false to assume that whatever he says will not be admissible as evidence of anything regarding the civil WDS.

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, and one of several that stand out to me in this case, according to California law, is article 5. statements of mental or physical state [1250-1253]:

1251. Evidence of a statement of the declarents state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation (including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health) at a time prior to the statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if:

A) declarent is unavailable as a witness (RZ would be considered declarents even if nn were being deposed or testifying in court bc in terms of hearsay, the declarent is the one who makes an out of court statement, so bc RZ is deceased, if NN was discussing anything she told him, RZ is the declarent); and

B) the evidence is offered to prove such prior state of mind, emotion, physical sensation when it is itself an issue in the action and the evidence is not offered to prove any fact other than such state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation.

Because RZ's death is ruled a suicide, which the Zahau's are fighting with this WDS, prior state of mind and emotion are obviously main issues in the action, so I would not dismiss anything he states in his deposition, where many of these things will likely be asked, as automatically being hearsay and inadmissible.

The judge will have the final say but from what I have researched, if anything in his deposition is relavent to an issue in the civil case that meets the hearsay exceptions (there are many I just posted one) if this goes to trial, it would be likely that he would be called to testify on some issues, history, etc, but maybe not all depending on the judge.

Link: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Here is my original post:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Wrongful-Death-action&p=12990480#post12990480

My comments are specifically in reply to one statement made by another poster. To be clear, I haven't said "all things" said by NN would be hearsay, nor do I believe that. However, this particular phrase, IMO, will be considered conjecture, irrelevant, or heresay, and not admissible.

For example, if RZ confided to NN that she was afraid of any of the defendants because of their words or actions toward her, or described situations where any of the defendants, such as DS in particular, threatened or intimidated her, I think that something like that could be ruled admissible. There is precedent for that.

 

[K_Z]

Thank you for the newest information. But I can't seem to find the above in red. The Stickey thread where Bessie posted others has not been updated that I can tell.
Could you please give me a link to the usual place. TIA

Working on that. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Mollyandme]

Here is my original post:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Wrongful-Death-action&p=12990480#post12990480

My comments are specifically in reply to one statement made by another poster. To be clear, I haven't said "all things" said by NN would be hearsay, nor do I believe that. However, this particular phrase, IMO, will be considered conjecture, irrelevant, or heresay, and not admissible.

For example, if RZ confided to NN that she was afraid of any of the defendants because of their words or actions toward her, or described situations where any of the defendants, such as DS in particular, threatened or intimidated her, I think that something like that could be ruled admissible. There is precedent for that.

Sure, that particular phrase might not be admissible, I can agree with that 100%.

I think a lot of what's allowed in terms of things RZ stated in the past to friends or family members about DS will come down to the judges application of the hearsay exceptions, probative vs prejudicial value, etc.

Actually, if NN were to state in his deposition that RZ told him for example, that she was afraid, threatened, intimidated by DS or the other defendents, I do think a statement like that could be allowed in, based on section 1240 of the California evidence code for starters. Based on the research I have done, i would expect to see motions in limine coming from both sides for multiple different reasons because I'm sure both sides feel there are things that are too prejudicial, irrelevant, or inflammatory that they wouldn't want in front of a jury. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules on these if it becomes an issue.

I still think this case could be dismissed when the defendants file a motion for summary judgment, but that's jmo

 

[Imp]

I read here and believe it was suicide. I'm not sure why those of us who believe this was suicide are ganged up on. Because I don't think Dina, Nina, or Adam had anything to do with RZ's death, In my eyes they are victims as well, Dina lost her son. I feel bad for all involved. Jmo

Who's "ganging up on" you? My response was to another poster with an obvious obsessive hatred of Rebecca all out of proportion to reality, not to mention sanity.

 

[Mollyandme]

Nina was there at 9:45 -10:00 pm on Tuesday night. Rebecca's suicide was sometime between 1:00 and 3:00 am Wednesday morning, when Dina was at Rady's. Both facts, we have known for many years. I asked for any evidence uncovered during the 1123 days this case has been in court. There is NONE.

Even if Dina disliked Rebecca, that does not equate to murder. but it sounds to me like it was Rebecca who abhorred Dina, considering she called Carolyn Niles to trash Dina just hours after Max was admitted to the ICU. That really shows what type of person she was.

I think it was Rebecca who was a "lying, delusional, hate-filled, scorned" girlfriend and she proved that with her angry, bizarre suicide aimed at hurting the family of the little boy fatally injured on her watch.

You are right that there has been no direct, physical evidence linking the defendants to Rebecca's death. The plaintiffs even admit this themselves and have made clear that their case will rely on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony.

Because the defendants are the ones moving for summary judgement, they have the burden of convincing the court that no triable issues of material fact exist in this case. On the other side, the plaintiffs only have to raise the issue that a triable issue does exist and have some admissible evidence to support it for the case to move forward towards trial. If the Zahau's are going to use their own medical experts testimony in regards to their circumstantial evidence, they will argue that the triable issue is that they believe RZ didn't commit suicide and the defendants are responsible. Obviously expert testimony would be needed here and it's not out of the realm of possibility, based on some previous blunders from their legal team, that whatever evidence, opinion, etc, they present to the court might be able to be severely limited in scope by a skilled lawyer based on certain objections commonly used when attempting to get expert testimony impeached, inadmissible or greatly diminished. For example, wasn't there a credibility issue that could be raised with the M.E who exhumed Rebecca? That could be an issue during summary judgement. Regardless, if it can be argued by the defense that any evidence provided by the plaintiffs at summary judgement provides no reasonable support that RZ was murdered, and their clients responsible then I don't see how this case moves forward.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

^ Cyril Wecht was the ME that exhumed Rebecca. He was paid by the Dr. Phil show for a sweeps week episode, and the examination was done in a manner that could not be used in criminal court. Even with that, he would not say she had been murdered, only that the death should have been labeled "inconclusive".

 

[Mollyandme]

Who's "ganging up on" you? My response was to another poster with an obvious obsessive hatred of Rebecca all out of proportion to reality, not to mention sanity.

in my opinion, there has been a consistent hatred toward Dina on this thread. If someone thinks RZ committed suicide and has backed up why they feel that way, I don't think it's obsessive or out of proportion with reality when the defendants have been equally vilified, with DS recently being described as a "lying, delusional, hate filled scorned spouse."

 

[FinallyRegistered]

The rudeness, allegations, and exaggerations in all directions on this thread is gross. Seriously, I cannot decipher facts from nastiness on this case. I beg of you all, please put "MOO" or "IMO" or any of those other opinion-noting code words if you are just spouting hate about the people involved.

 

[justice be served]

Just a quick hello to those of you that are so rightfully supporting the Zahau family in their gracious and dignified pursuit of justice. Never have I been so certain of the hate-filled vilification of this young woman who has had no voice or ability to defend herself after her death. It is truly shameful how this has played out and I do believe Rebecca will find her truth through death and those responsible will be found out. Thanks for the untiring efforts of all of you who have cared to see the obvious hate toward this departed woman.