Current

MEMORANDUM **

1. The district court’s decision to exclude the written declaration of Toni Richmond as inadmissible hearsay was not an abuse of discretion. See Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2004) (noting abuse of discretion standard of review). Current failed to demonstrate that the exception for past recollection recorded was applicable in the absence of Ms. Richmond’s acknowledgment that she either made or adopted the declaration. Additionally, the contemporaneity requirement was not met. See Fed.R.Evid. 803(5). The residual hearsay exception was also inapplicable because the declaration lacked “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” See Fed. R.Evid. 807.

2. Failure to admit the verbal hearsay statement of Ms. Richmond was not an abuse of discretion. The statement was neither an excited utterance, because it lacked the requisite startling event, see Fed.R.Evid. 803(2), nor a present sense impression, because it did not describe an event occurring at the time or one that had just occurred. See Fed.R.Evid. 803(1).

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose discovery sanctions. The district court’s finding that the…