P. 1
October 25, 2007 - Bay Guardian Company, Inc. vs. New Times Media, LLC (now known as Village Voice Media)

October 25, 2007 - Bay Guardian Company, Inc. vs. New Times Media, LLC (now known as Village Voice Media)

|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by Iralistya

More info:

Published by: Iralistya on Oct 30, 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

10/30/2011

pdf

text

original

San Francisco Superior Courts

Information Technology Group

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-25-2007 4:30 pm

Case Number: CGC-04-435584 Filing Date: Oct-25-2007 4:30 Juke Box: 001 Image: 01923246 ORDER

BAY GUARDIAN COMPANY, INC., VS. NT MEDIA LLC, et al

001C01923246

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

RALPH C. ALLDREDGE, ESQ. SBN: 043947 214 Grant Ave., Suite 301 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 398-2797 Telecopier: (415) 789-4123 E. CRAIG MOODY, ESQ. SBN: 048358 RICHARD P. HILL, ESQ. SBN: 050749 MOODY & HILL 214 Grant Avenue, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 398-2797 Telecopier: (415) 391-1285 Attorneys for Plaintiff Bay Guardian Company, Inc. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN ,FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION BAY GUARDIAN COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff,
VS.

Sen Francisco County Superior Court

FILED
Deputy Clerk

CASE NO. 04-435584 012-be-R-- oN OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND MOTION TO STRIKE Hearing Date: Oct. 24, 2007 Courtroom: 304 Hon. Richard Kramer Case Filed: Oct. 19, 2004 Trail Date: .January 2, 2008

NEW TIMES MEDIA LLC, SF WEEKLY LP, EAST BAY EXPRESS PUBLISHING LP, TROY LARKIN, DOES One through Ten, inclusive, Defendants.

The Bay Guardian Company, Inc. Objects to, and moves to strike, the following evidence 24 offered by New Times Media LLC in support of its Motions for Summary Adjudication of Section 25 17043 and Section 17045 claims and in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment under Miami 26 Herald v. Tornillo. 27 28
°ASO- 00 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND MOTION TO STRIKE

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Objection Number One The Bay Guardian objects to and moves to strike in its entirety the declaration of Joseph Kalt in Support of Motions for Summary Adjudication of Section 17043 and Section 17045 claims. Ground for Objection This purported expert declaration is opinion testimony without foundation. It fails to either 1) state the basis for any of the opinions it provides or 2) to indicate what materials have been reviewed in reaching the opinions stated. As such, it is inadmissable under evidence code sections 802 and 803. Court's Ruling on Objection: Dated: Sustained: Overruled:

Objection Number Two Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the second sentence of paragraph five of the Declaration of Christopher Keating in Support of Motions for Summary Adjudication of Section 17043 and Section 17045 claims ("Keating Decl.") which states, "I have never approved an advertisement sale at a rate lower than what I believed the customer was willing to pay." Ground for Objection Irrelevant and opinion without foundation. It is irrelevant whether Mr. Keating approved or not an advertisement sale at a rate lower than what he believed a customer was willing to pay. Further, it is opinion without foundation. There is no foundation for Mr. Keating's opinion concerning what any customer was willing to pay. Court's Ruling on Objection: Dated: Sustained: Overruled: )<

Objection Number Three Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike paragraph ten of the Keating Decl. which states, "The 09..DEA
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND MOTION TO STRIKE

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

nature of the advertising market is such that no entity could sell advertising at a loss to drive out competitors and then plan to recoup the losses later by raising prices to non-competitive levels. The remaining competitors, or new companies would simply take away the customers with lower prices." Ground for Objection This is opinion testimony with no foundation and speculation. Court's Ruling on Objection: Dated: Sustained: \ X Overruled:

Objection Number Four Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike paragraph two of the Declaration of Troy Larkin in Support for Summary Adjudication of Section 17043 and 17045 claims in its entirety which states, "My primary goal in each of my positions was to increase advertising revenues. My compensation was tied to increasing advertising revenues. Accordingly, I had an economic incentive to increase advertising revenues. I always sought to maximize advertising revenues. I have never approved an advertisement sale at a rate lower than what I believed the customer was willing to pay." Ground for Objection Irrelevant and opinion without foundation. It is not relevant what Mr. Larkin's primary goal in each of his positions was or whether his compensation was tied i:o increasing advertising revenues or whether he had an economic incentive to increase advertising revenues or whether he sought to increase advertising revenues. In addition, it is also not relevant whether he ever approved or did not approve an advertisement sale at a rate lower than what he believed the customer was willing to pay. In addition, what he believed a customer was willing to pay is a matter of opinion without foundation. Court's Ruling on Objection: Dated:
ORDOZ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND MOTION TO STRIKE

Sustained

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ipilDEAZ ONJ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND MOTION TO STRIKE

Oven-ul[ed:

Objection Number Five Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike paragraph three of the Declaration of Scott Tobias in Support for Summary Adjudication of Section 17043 and 170L-5 claims, which states, "The sponsorship of the 'SF Weekly Warfield Theater' is publicly known and was the subject of a press release." Ground for Objection Irrelevant. Especially when Mr. Tobias acknowledges that the details of the sponsorship of the SF Weekly Warfield Theater are so secret as to warrant the continued designated of "Attorneys' Eyes Only," it is irrelevant that the fact of the sponsorship is publicly known and was the subject of a press release. Court's Ruling on Objection: Dated: /0 - L5^ 47 Sustained: OverruledX-

5..45
Dated: October 7, 2007 MOODY & HILL

7f By: E. Craig Moody Attorneys for intiff Bay Guardian Company, Inc.

4

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)//-->