Plaintiff Wendy Klenk leased an apartment. Shortly after moving in, she noticed a smell that led her to believe her apartment was contaminated with mold or other chemicals. Klenk brought habitability, negligence, and other claims against her landlord and related entities (Greystar).
Horvitz & Levy provided consultation services at the trial. During the trial, Klenk called expert witnesses to testify about the results of laboratory tests performed on samples taken from her apartment. Greystar objected that the expert witnesses could not relate the laboratory results to the jury because they were case-specific hearsay under the California Supreme Court’s precedent in People v. Sanchez and were therefore inadmissible unless and until the analysts or other witnesses with personal knowledge of the testing testified about the results. Klenk did not call the analysts, leading the court to exclude the results and expert testimony based on them.
Klenk also sought to introduce as evidence the court’s pre-trial orders granting her preliminary injunctive relief, which she wanted to offer to show her claims had merit. The trial court excluded the orders under California Evidence Code section 352.
The jury reached a verdict that was favorable to the defense, finding for Klenk on her negligence cause of action but for Greystar on all remaining claims. The trial court denied Klenk’s motion for a new trial and Klenk appealed.
Horvitz & Levy represented Greystar in seeking to preserve the judgement challenged on appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the laboratory rest results and the trial court’s pre-trial orders because: (1) substantial evidence supported the trial court’s factual finding that the laboratory reports required extensive human involvement and were therefore hearsay; (2) Klenk failed to establish a hearsay exception; and (3) any probative value in admitting the court’s pre-trial orders was substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.
