Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LIBERI v TATIZ (C.D. CA) - 349.1 - Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esq. - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.349.1

LIBERI v TATIZ (C.D. CA) - 349.1 - Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esq. - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.349.1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 34|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esq. - 08/15/2011 349[RECAP] REPLY in support of MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint 296 filed by Defendant Yosef Taitz. (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esq.)(Cunningham, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esq. - 08/15/2011 349[RECAP] REPLY in support of MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint 296 filed by Defendant Yosef Taitz. (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esq.)(Cunningham, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/15/2011)

More info:

Published by: Jack Ryan on Aug 17, 2011
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

08/17/2011

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
-1-
DEFENDANT, YOSEF TAITZ’S MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Kim Schumann, Esq., State Bar #170942Jeffrey P. Cunningham, Esq., State Bar #151067Peter Cook, Esq., State Bar #232742
SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP
3100 Bristol Street, Suite 400Costa Mesa, CA 92626Telephone (714) 850-0210Facsimile (714) 850-0551Email: jcunningham@srrlawfirm.comAttorneys for Defendant, YOSEF TAITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA LIBERI; LISA M. OSTELLA; GOEXCEL GLOBAL; PHILIP J. BERG,ESQUIRE; and THE LAW OFFICES OFPHILIP J. BERG,Plaintiffs,vs.ORLY TAITZ, a/k/a DR. ORLY TAITZ;LAW OFFICES OF ORLY TAITZ;ORLY TAITZ, INC.; DEFEND OURFREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.;NEIL SANKEY; SANKEYINVESTIGATIONS, INC; TODDSANKEY; THE SANKEY FIRM, INC.;REED ELSEVIER, INC.; LEXISNEXISGROUP, INC., a Division of ReedElsevier, Inc.; LEXISNEXIS RISK ANDINFORMATION ANALYTICSGROUP, INC.; LEXISNEXIS SEISINT,INC. d/b/a ACCURINT, a Division of Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LEXISNEXISCHOICEPOINT, INC., a Division of Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LEXISNEXIS RISKSOLUTIONS, INC., a Division of ReedElsevier, Inc.; INTELIUS, INC.;ORACLE CORPORATION;DAYLIGHT CHEMICALINFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.;YOSEF TAITZ, individually, and asOwner / CEO of DAYLIGHTCHEMICAL INFORMATIONSYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1 through186, inclusive,Defendants.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Case No. 8:11-CV-00485-AG (AJW)Hon. Andrew GuilfordCourtroom 10D
MEMORANDUM OF
 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
BY DEFENDANT,YOSEF TAITZ, TO DECLARATIONOF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.[FILED CONCURRENTLY WITHDEFENDANT’S REPLY MPAREGARDING HIS MOTION TODISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT]
Date:August 29, 2011Time:10:00 a.m.Place:Courtroom 10DDate Action Filed:May 4, 2009Discovery Cut-Off:March 5, 2012Final Pre-Trial Conf.:May 21, 2012Trial Date:June 5, 2012
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 349-1 Filed 08/15/11 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#:8280
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
-2-
DEFENDANT, YOSEF TAITZ’S MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OFRECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that Defendant, YOSEF TAITZ (“MovingDefendant”), submits the following
evidentiary objections
to the DECLARATIONOF PHILIP J. BERG (“Declaration”) submitted with Plaintiffs’ Opposition toMoving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of CivilProcedure (“FRCP”), Rule 12(b)(6) regarding Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint(“FAC”).
I.GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO CONSIDERATION OF PHILIP J.BERG’S DECLARATION REGARDING MOVING DEFENDANTS’FRCP RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
Moving Defendant has filed an FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to dismiss. Hehas not filed a Motion for summary judgment. His Motion challenges the legalsufficiency of the FAC, based on its allegations shown on the “face” of thepleading. He does not rely on, nor submit evidence of, any matter extrinsic to theFAC.Instead of arguing the legal sufficiency of the FAC in their Opposition,Plaintiffs, through the Declaration of Mr. Berg, rely on matters extraneous to theFAC. As a matter of law, Mr. Berg’s Declaration cannot be considered on MovingDefendants’ FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. Such Motion is limited to the “face” of the FAC and matters judicially noticed. FRCP Rule 12(b)(6). Bell Atlantic Corp. v.Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007). Szoke v. Carter, 165 F.R.D. 34, 36 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
 
Graehling v. Village of Lombard, 58 F.3d 295, 298 (7th Cir. 1995).Moving Defendant therefore objects to Mr. Berg’s Declaration beingconsidered in opposition to his Motion. Moving Defendant moves to strike suchimproper extrinsic evidence.
II.SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO PHILIP J. BERG’S DECLARATION
As stated, Mr. Berg’s Declaration cannot be considered herein. However,
if 
 
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 349-1 Filed 08/15/11 Page 2 of 9 Page ID#:8281
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
-3-
DEFENDANT, YOSEF TAITZ’S MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
the Court does consider such matters, Moving Defendant submits the followingspecific evidentiary objections to it. Such objections are submitted with an expressreservation of Moving Defendant’s general objections to such declaration beingconsidered, and without waiving such general objections. As shown below, suchDeclaration is devoid of any competent or admissible evidence.
A.
Objections to Declaration of Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONSDECLARATION OFPLAINTIFF, PHILIP J. BERGMOVINGDEFENDANT’SOBJECTIONSCOURT’SRULING
1.“Mr. Taitz Motion to Dismissis premature as to certain causesof actions outlined in PlaintiffsResponse in Opposition to hisMotion. Discovery has notcommenced with DefendantsYosef Taitz, Oracle or DaylightChemical Information Systems,Inc. [“Daylight”] as of this date.”Declaration of Philip J. Berg,¶ 3.Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid.(“FRE”), Rules 401, 402.Speculation. Lacksfoundation. No showing of personal knowledge of declarant. FRE 602.Hearsay. FRE 802 et seq.Inadmissible opiniontestimony. FRE 701 et seq.Argumentative.Sustained: ___Overruled: ___2. “Once discovery commences,it is imperative for Plaintiffs toreceive all the source codes usedby Defendants Yosef Taitz,Oracle and Daylight on theirproducts supplied to and used bythe Reed Defendants andDefendant Intelius from the timeIrrelevant. FRE 401, 402.Speculation. Lacksfoundation. No showing of personal knowledge of declarant. FRE 602.Hearsay. FRE 802 et seq.Inadmissible opiniontestimony. FRE 701 et seq.Sustained: ___Overruled: ___
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 349-1 Filed 08/15/11 Page 3 of 9 Page ID#:8282

You're Reading a Free Preview

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