[MacIvor Declaration at ¶20.] Natura objects to the prior excerpt based on (i) lack of foundation (FRE 602), (ii) inadmissible opinion (FRE 701) and (iii) hearsay (FRE 802). V. CONCLUSION Based of the foregoing, Natura hereby requests the Court strike the MacIvor Declaration in its entirety.

C. The Proffered Testimony Should Be Excluded Under Rule 403 Even if this Court finds that the proffered evidence is relevant and somehow satisfies the requirements of Rule 701, it should still be excluded under Rule 403 because its meager probative value (if any) is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time. The SEC does not dispute that the lay opinion testimony poses “a significant danger of misleading the jury into believing that it should judge materiality from the perspective of a highly trained financial analyst [or underwriter] rather than from the perspective of a reasonable investor.”

Improper opinion (FRE 701, 702). Improper opinion as to value of property (FRE 701, 702). Dated: December 14, 2012 Respectfully Submitted WINSTON & STRAWN LLP By: /s/ T. Thomas Cottingham, III Amanda L. Groves (SBN: 187216) agroves@winston.com 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 AND Exhibit B to Administrative Motion Page 29 Case3:09-md-02015-RS Document373 Filed12/14/12 Page29 of 32 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 93000/HR0710/00545005-1 14 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF PLS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO AND OSC RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION W IN S T O N & S T R A W N L LP A L IM IT E D L IA B IL IT Y P A R T N E R S H IP T. Thomas Cottingham, III (admitted pro hac vice) tcottingham@winston.com Stacie C. Knight (admitted pro hac vice) sknight@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 2900 Charlotte, NC 28202-1078 Telephon

In light of this experience, Mr. Jones is qualified to testify regarding the advantage Mr. Sandrini would obtain from continuing to produce Autumn King grapes. To the extent the testimony is an opinion, it is at most lay opinion permitted by FRE 701. See, e.g., Union Pac. Res.

¶ 14, p. 5: “That their child has become a victim yet again, is a belief strongly and understandably held by parents.” Hearsay; lacks foundation; Best Evidence Rule; argumentative; improper opinion testimony (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 802) DECLARATION OF TAMARA L. LANNIN (“Lannin Decl.”) General Objection: Brandy objects generally to the entirety of the Lannin Declaration, and each statement contained therein, on the grounds that it lacks foundation, is not relevant to the applicable legal standard, is conclusory, is argumentative, is misleading, and the declarant lacks personal knowledge of the matters stated.

Sustained ___. Overruled ___. 20. Somogyi Decl. ¶ 41, page 8, lines 4-7. “Fumaric acid similarly functions . . . in 20. Hearsay, FRE 801(c); lack of foundation/lack of personal knowledge, FRE 602; irrelevant, FRE 401; improper expert Sustained ___. Overruled ___. Case 3:17-cv-02335-GPC-MDD Document 60 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.1740 Page 12 of 13 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 12 3:17-CV-2335 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ISO CLASS CERT MOTION Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection(s): combination with malic acid can improve the flavor profile of the product.” testimony, FRE 701, 703-706; not disclosed in discovery or moving papers. Dated: October 9, 2018 Respectfully submitted, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: /s/: Rick L. Shackelford Rick L. Shackelford Adam Siegler Attorneys for Defendants Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. and Arnold Worldwide, LLC LA 134038513v3 Case 3:17-cv-02335-GPC-MDD Document 60 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.1741 Page 13 of 13

¶ 40 – entire paragraph. Lacks foundation, FRE 602; Improper Opinion, FRE 701. Plaintiff’s assertions about the lock out, tag out procedures lacks foundation.

Improper legal conclusion as to the legal significance of any purported “contacts” Lisa Kirby has had with New York. FRE 701. Bard also provides no supporting documentation for his testimony.

[Hummel Decl., ¶ 27.] Objection: Inadmissible Hearsay [FRE 802]; Lacks Foundation & Personal Knowledge [FRE 602]; Improper Opinion Testimony [FRE 701]; Irrelevant [FRE 402]; Speculative; Vague; Conclusory; Prejudicial [FRE 403]. Hummel’s alleged personal knowledge of the training received by other PSSs stems from inadmissible hearsay (i.e., conversations and interactions with other PSSs).

Morse Dec. ¶ 25. Speculation (FRE 602); Impermissible Lay Opinion Testimony (FRE 701). Id.