In Reid v. Google, No. S158965, the California Supreme Court is evaluating what it takes to preserve evidentiary objections in the summary judgment motion context. Existing law is that an objection is waived if the court does not expressly rule on it, which follows the standard rule that an objection made at trial is waived if not ruled upon. Reid may change this rule as applied to motions for summary judgment.
Waiver is a draconian result. It means that the evidentiary objection may not be revisited on appeal and even plainly inadmissible evidence must be considered to have been admitted without objection. This has led to a hodgepodge of rules in the lower courts, ranging from the now discredited practice of trial courts stating they have only considered admissible evidence, to a stomp-and-shout rule that objections are preserved if counsel requests rulings repeatedly and with some undefined, sufficient vigor.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
