Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Defendant's Opposition to Motion in Limine to exclude expert Dr. Yongdae Kim

Defendant's Opposition to Motion in Limine to exclude expert Dr. Yongdae Kim

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,484|Likes:
Published by Ben Sheffner
Defendant's Opposition to Motion in Limine to exclude expert Dr. Yongdae Kim in Capitol v. Jammie Thomas
Defendant's Opposition to Motion in Limine to exclude expert Dr. Yongdae Kim in Capitol v. Jammie Thomas

More info:

Published by: Ben Sheffner on Jun 05, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MINNESOTACAPITOL RECORDS INC.; SONYBMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT;ARISTA RECORDS LLC;INTERSCOPE RECORDS;WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC.;
and
UMG RECORDINGS INC.
,
Plaintiffs
,v.
JAMMIE THOMAS
,
 Defendant 
.Case No. 06-cv-1497 (MJD/RLE)JURY DEMANDED
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDETESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT’S EXPERT DR. YONGDAE KIM
K.A.D. CamaraCamara & Sibley LLP2339 University BoulevardHouston, Texas 77005713 893 7973713-583-1131 (fax)camara@camarasibley.com Garrett BlanchfieldBrant D. PenneyReinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield332 Minnesota Street, Suite E-1250St. Paul, Minnesota 55101651-287-2100651-287-2103g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com 
 Attorneys for Defendant Jammie Thomas
 Dated: June 4, 2009
Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 295 Filed 06/04/2009 Page 1 of 7
 
1
 
INTRODUCTION
Dr. Yongdae Kim (“Dr. Kim”) is a renowned scholar from the Universityof Minnesota in Computer Science.
See
Ex. B to Plaintiffs’ Motion. Specifically,Dr. Kim has conducted research and is an expert in peer-to-peer systems, network security, and wireless networks.
See id.
 Defendant has retained Dr. Kim to offer expert testimony in this case. Inthis case, Plaintiffs seek to show that Defendant committed copyright infringementby illegally sharing music files through peer-to-peer software called “KaZaA” viathe Internet.
See generally
Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Defendant contends that she isnot responsible for downloading or using the KaZaA to share the songs at issue forinfringement in this case. Plaintiffs seek to argue that the presence of KaZaA andthe alleged infringing songs, by themselves, prove the Defendant committedillegal acts. Plaintiffs’ expert will offer such testimony as well.However, Dr. Kim will provide rebuttal expert testimony,
inter alia
,demonstrating that there are many other scenarios that can explain how the KaZaAsoftware and the alleged infringing songs appeared on Defendant’s computer.This testimony will be helpful to the jury because it will allow the jury to properlyweigh the evidence regarding the origin of the KaZaA software and the allegedinfringing songs. As demonstrated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to establish thatDr. Kim is not qualified to offer this reliable and relevant testimony that will assistthe jury in resolving fact issues in this case.
Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 295 Filed 06/04/2009 Page 2 of 7
 
2
 
I. DR. KIM’S REBUTTAL EXPERT TESTIMONY ONALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE ISRELIABLE AND ADMISSIBLE.
In Section I of their Motion, Plaintiffs correctly point out that Dr. Kimoffers fourteen (14) alternative explanations for the presence of KaZaA and certainalleged infringing songs on Defendant’s computer. Plaintiffs also correctly pointout that Dr. Kim is not offering an opinion on the probable cause of the presenceof KaZaA and certain alleged infringing files.However, what Plaintiffs fail to recognize is that Dr. Kim is offering thistestimony as rebuttal expert testimony to Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Jacobson. As such,and as stated in Dr. Kim’s expert report (Ex. B to Plaintiffs’ Motion), Dr. Kim ismerely opining as to the reliability and weight of Dr. Jacobson’s testimony as toPlaintiffs’ evidence. Dr. Kim discusses multiple possibilities of alternativeexplanations that Dr. Jacobson did not considerin arriving at his conclusions.This is class rebuttal expert testimony.
See, e.g., Polski v. Quigley Corp.
, 538 F.3d836 (8
th
Cir. 2008) (holding expert testimony may be challenged by,
inter alia
,“whether the proposed expert ruled out other alternative explanations”).Accordingly, Dr. Kim is offering rebuttal expert testimony to Dr. Jacobson’stestimony by pointing out the many alternative explanations Dr. Jacobson failed toconsider.Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims that Dr. Kim’s testimony is unreliable all singthe same refrain: Because Dr. Kim discusses possibilities and not probabilities histestimony is unreliable. Plaintiffs’ arguments fail for several reasons. First,
Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 295 Filed 06/04/2009 Page 3 of 7

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Paulus H Chan liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->