IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) DATA THEFT LITIGATION - MDL 1796

MOTION To Clarify April 19, 2007 Memorandum Order Of The Court

D.D.C.April 23, 2007

{00017271; 1} UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ : In Re: DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS : AFFAIRS (VA) DATA THEFT : LITIGATION : ____________________________________: Misc. Action No. 06-0506 (JR) : MDL Docket No. 1796 This Document Relates To: : ALL CASES : ____________________________________: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CLARIFY APRIL 19, 2007 MEMORANDUM ORDER OF THE COURT Plaintiffs respectfully move to clarify this Court’s April 19, 2007 Memorandum Order. Plaintiffs’ request is narrowly directed to the status of Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. The Court ruled that Exhibit 1 cured the authentication “defect” of Exhibit 6 to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (See Order at 3). The Court then allowed leave for Defendants to substitute Exhibit 1 for the originally filed Exhibit 6 to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, thereby allowing Exhibit 1 to be admitted in evidence. (See Order at 3). However, in so ruling, it is unclear if the Court addressed Plaintiffs’ argument to strike Exhibit 1 under Fed Evid. R. 702 as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum. (See Mot. Strike Reply Mem. at 16-18). Plaintiffs request clarification on this one limited issue. A memorandum supporting this motion follows, and a proposed order granting this motion is attached hereto as Exhibit A pursuant to LCvR7(c). Plaintiffs are informed that Defendants will oppose this motion. Case 1:06-mc-00506-JR Document 24 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 5 {00017271; 1} 2 Respectfully submitted, /s/ John C. Murdock John C. Murdock Donald A. Cockrill Jeffrey S. Goldenberg Douglas J. Rosinski Murdock, Goldenberg, Schneider & Groh, LLP Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & 35 East Seventh Street Stewart, P.C. Suite 600 1320 Main Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Columbia, SC 29201 (513) 345-8291 (803) 252-1300 (513) 345-8294 (fax) (803) 254-6517 (fax) Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV-01943(JR) Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV-01038(JR) Marc D. Mezibov Gary E. Mason Christian A. Jenkins Alexander E. Barnett Mezibov & Jenkins, LLP The Mason Law Firm, P.C. 401 East Court Street, Suite 600 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (513) 723-1600 (202) 429-2290 (513) 723-1620 (fax) (202) 429-2294 (fax) Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV-01943(JR) Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV- 01943(JR) Mark D. Smilow Weiss & Lurie The French Building 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10176 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV-01944(JR) Dated: April 23, 2007 Case 1:06-mc-00506-JR Document 24 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 2 of 5 {00017271; 1} UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ : In Re: DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS : AFFAIRS (VA) DATA THEFT : LITIGATION : ____________________________________: Misc. Action No. 06-0506 (JR) : MDL Docket No. 1796 This Document Relates To: : ALL CASES : ____________________________________: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CLARIFY THE APRIL 19, 2007 MEMORANDUM ORDER OF THE COURT In response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Exhibit 6 to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment for lack of foundation (see Mot to Strike at 2, 13-14), the Court granted leave for Defendants to substitute for Exhibit 6 the newly-executed Declaration of Mike Cook, attached to Defendants’ Opposition Memorandum as Exhibit 1. While the Court addressed the authenticity “defect” in Exhibit 6 (see Order at 3), the Court seemingly did not address Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 1 under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Exhibit 1 is authentic. However, Exhibit 1 reveals heretofore undisclosed information, upon which Defendants rely: “ID Analytics conducted a breach analysis of the [VA data] file, comparing the data with pre- and post-breach activities in the ID Network. The analysis looked for suspicious changes in identity information, the commingling of unrelated identities in the breach population, and other indicators of organized misuse.” See Exhibit 1, ¶4. Case 1:06-mc-00506-JR Document 24 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 3 of 5 {00017271; 1} 2 Anticipating that Defendants were seeking to substitute Exhibit 1 for Exhibit 6 (See Mot. Strike Reply Mem. at 16), Plaintiffs necessarily responded to Exhibit 1 in their reply memorandum. (See id. at 16-18). Plaintiffs point out that Exhibit 1 contains opinion testimony that is technical in nature, and therefore, remains inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 regardless of its authenticity. (See id.). For instance, while Exhibit 1 states that “ID Analytics, using its standard processes and analytical tools, did not find any organized misuse of the VA records file (breach date 3 May 2006) in the ID Network,” nowhere do Defendants establish the foundation for the reliability of the “processes and analytical tools.” In sum, per Evid. Rule 702, for Exhibit 1 to be admissible, Defendants must demonstrate that the testimony with Exhibit 1 is (i) based on sufficient facts or data, (ii) is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (iii) and that the applied principles and methods are reliable as to the facts of the case. (See Mot. to Strike Mem. at 16-18).1 Thus while the Court ruled that “the defect in Exhibit 6…has been remedied by supporting affidavit” (see Order at 3), Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Order is unclear as to any ruling by the Court as to Plaintiffs’ argument under Evidence Rule 702. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to clarify its Order to address Plaintiffs’ Rule 702 argument. Plaintiffs do not seek any other clarification with the Order. 1 With Exhibit 1 stricken, Exhibit 6 thus remains defective and inadmissible . Case 1:06-mc-00506-JR Document 24 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 4 of 5 {00017271; 1} 3 Respectfully submitted, /s/ John C. Murdock John C. Murdock Donald A. Cockrill Jeffrey S. Goldenberg Douglas J. Rosinski Murdock, Goldenberg, Schneider & Groh, LLP Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & 35 East Seventh Street Stewart, P.C. Suite 600 1320 Main Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Columbia, SC 29201 (513) 345-8291 (803) 252-1300 (513) 345-8294 (fax) (803) 254-6517 (fax) Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV-01943(JR) Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV-01038(JR) Marc D. Mezibov Gary E. Mason Christian A. Jenkins Alexander E. Barnett Mezibov & Jenkins, LLP The Mason Law Firm, P.C. 401 East Court Street, Suite 600 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (513) 723-1600 (202) 429-2290 (513) 723-1620 (fax) (202) 429-2294 (fax) Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV-01943(JR) Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV- 01943(JR) Mark D. Smilow Weiss & Lurie The French Building 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10176 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 Counsel in Case No. 1:06-CV-01944(JR) Dated: April 23, 2007 Case 1:06-mc-00506-JR Document 24 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 5 of 5 Case 1:06-mc-00506-JR Document 24-2 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 1