ok, moving along to nancy lyman. unlike ms,. lopez s declaration, you were more successful narrowing your scope of the disputes. unless i misread it. no, but i did not mean to give you the impression we had to go through this paragraph by paragraph. we have an overarching objection because, repeating myself, we don t think a domestic violence expert is needed to understand the situation and make a decision. i am aware from past comments that some of you have made to that. i am probably in the minority here, but really, they agreed to take out those paragraphs. i alluded to 185 to 190, inclusive. other than the overarching irrelevance objection, really the only outstanding point that is in dispute is the bullet point number 6, or vi. i took your objection seriously and went through this paragraph by paragraph to determine what i thought was relevant. should i have not done that? i m very sorry, the relevance objection is not too specific individualize paragraphs, but to
you as my lawyer and tell you about an incident? i did not use that. the same way as with pawlentula. on january 4, you had a discussion, or you texted ms. haynes because you wanted to talk to her about the incident. is that correct? yes. you were fairly consistent with trying to reach her for that purpose? were you not? yes, i wanted to realize that was really a domestic violence. had you ever prior to the time you were texting her about is, had you ever spoken to ms. haynes about your personal relationship with ross democrats know, just comments during the campaign. everybody gets sick, and no one can follow iis reason. that kind of thing. you never had more than a 40 minute conversation with ms. haynes, and in that conversation, did you describe what had happened on december 31? yes. what if any response did she give to you when you told her those facts? what was her response to? what did she say in response? she was asking more questions, and she w
make sure the police report we discussed yesterday is not included. i think it is. i made in objection and i understood that to be sustained last night. i don t think that we addressed it. you have a different recollection? we discussed it, but we did not settle it. i think we got rid of the rebuttal testimony from backeec. which do you have an objection to? e85, the report, hearsay. then 87, relevance. i am happy to expand upon that. ok, you may have to, but i don t think you will. ok, 84, 86 are in by stipulation? yes. okay, let s take 85 first. i think it is here say. if he could asked at the officer? it falls within the evidence code, 1280, it is for writings made by and within the scope of duty of a public employ about an act, condition, or event that fits the bill. this is an incident report about the act and event that occurred when they arrested sheriff mirkarimi and discussion. under case law, this provision applies to incident reports, and they,
thank you, ms. lopez. did you have any questions? new no. i have no questions. thank you for flying all the way out here. we appreciate you being here. the witness is excuse. we are going to take a short break for the court reporter, and we are going to do a little rearranging, so let s get back here ok, we are back in session. the next thing on the agenda is the objections to be testimony. mr. kobb, we be making those? yes, and there is an overarching declaration, we see this as a tangential evidence as far as expert testimony. there is a specific objection. this is an undue consumption of time for everybody and a waste of resources, and if this i transcript of testimony is admitted, it will likely necessitate us offering at least one additional declaration from a witness that we had not thought that we would need as part of the record. so i understand the mayor has made numerous objections to other issues that we have proposed because of the 352. it is a waste
the objections to be testimony. mr. kobb, we be making those? yes, and there is an overarching declaration, we see this as a tangential evidence as far as expert testimony. there is a specific objection. this is an undue consumption of time for everybody and a waste of resources, and if this i transcript of testimony is admitted, it will likely necessitate us offering at least one additional declaration from a witness that we had not thought that we would need as part of the record. so i understand the mayor has made numerous objections to other issues that we have proposed because of the 352. it is a waste of time, and that is what we think about ms. flores transcripts. any questions for mr. kopp about that? we don t see the unto consumption of time argument, because we submitted the transcripts and testimony within days of wendy witness declarations were submitted. we indicated that if we were submitting it in lieu of a declaration because it was already testimony th