But Ferguson’s procedural posture has no relevance to the FRE 201 analysis. Under FRE 201(f), judicial notice may be taken “at any stage of the proceeding,” but only when the facts at issue satisfy the strictures of FRE 201(b). The Fifth Circuit’s refusal to judicially notice factual findings made in another proceeding in Ferguson was a straightforward application of FRE 201(b) and should be applied here. Case 3:10-cv-00395-BAJ -CN Document 191 10/13/11 Page 3 of 6 4 2009) (Riedlinger, M.J.); Causey v. Poret, No. 07-238-FJP-SCR, 2007 WL 2701969, *4 (M.D. La. Aug. 23, 2007) (Polozola, J.). The cases cited by Plaintiffs, Love Terminal Partners v. United States, 97 F. Cl. 355 (2011) and L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2007), fail to address this important distinction between the issuance of a report and its contents, when the contents contain disputed facts and unverified data.

G. MGC AND LNV'S MOTION TO DISMISS On March 9, 2015, MGC and LNV filed their Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 18 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Defendants respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of the Trustee's Deed, which is filed in the Official Public Records of Dallas County, Texas at Instrument No. 201400229264. See FED. R. EVID. 201. 19 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Defendants respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of the Justice Court Eviction Action.

. Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:12259 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William M. Hannay, an attorney, hereby certify that I caused true and correct copies of the foregoing Memorandum of Law in Support of the Pool’s Motion for Reconsideration or Hearing Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(E) to be sent by the U.S. District Court CM/ECF e-filing system on this, the 29th day of July, 2010. William M. Hannay Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:12260 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:12261 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:12262 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:12263 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:12264 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:12265 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:12266 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:12267 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:12268 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:12269 Case: 1:07-cv-02898 Document #: 675 Filed: 07/29/10 Pa

See also Hancock v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. CIV 2:06-CV-00208-FCD-DAD, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39774, at *12 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2006) (noting that one of the goals of the limitations placed on judicial notice via Rule 201 is to allow both parties to “examine each other’s evidence and to present all sides to the trier of fact,” and explaining how that goal would be frustrated if judicial notice could properly be taken of facts that are susceptible of reasonable dispute). Similarly, in denying the request to take judicial notice, a district court was not persuaded to consider the contents of a website in determining whether the complaint’s allegations might incorporate website materials by reference.

-3- Suite Hotels LLC v. City of Emeryville, 2007 WL81911 (N.D. Cal 2007)(judicial notice of BLS statistics showing wages in the hotel industry); Vandegrift v. Atlantic Envelope Co., 2003 WL 22871661(E.D. Pa 2003)(judicial notice of Bureau of Labor Statistics workforce data); Giles Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 650 F.2d 274 (Ct.Cl. 1981); U.S. ex rel Berglund v. Boeing Co. 2012 WL 1902599 (D.Or. 2012); Rhoades v Walsh, 2009 WL 2600094 (D.Me.2009); Knoch v. Astrue, 2009 WL 691926 (M.D.Fla 2009); In re Davis, 336 B.R.604 (W.D. N.Y. 2006). The website data at issue regarding the wages of social workers, Exhibit B, is clearly properly the subject of judicial notice pursuant to FRE 201. Apparently the only bar to judicial notice of this data would be a failure to adequately identify the website where it is published.

Judicial notice is appropriate only of those facts not subject to reasonable dispute and that are either generally known or capable of accurate and ready determination. FED. R. EVID. 201(b). The extensive extrinsic evidence of which eBay seeks judicial notice cannot meet these standards.

An adverse party may make a "timely request" to be "heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed." Fed. R. Evid. 201(e); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 advisory committee's note on Subdivision (e) ("Basic considerations of procedural fairness demand an opportunity to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. The rule requires the granting of that opportunity upon request."). Case 8:16-cv-00850-EAK-AAS Document 25 Filed 06/29/16 Page 8 of 18

at 194, fns.22, 26; 203, n. 45. Unlike this case, the authenticity of the documents was not in question, and the documents are of the type that are properly judicially noticed under Fed. R. Evid. 201. 9 In Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, it also cites to Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003), for the proposition that “a court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations contradicted by documents properly judicially noticed.”

In order to be subject to judicial notice, a fact must be “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Defendants offer no basis for why the Court should conclude that the accuracy of the facts contained within these exhibits “cannot reasonably be questioned.”

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Rule 201 permits courts to judicially notice “matters of public record,” and to consider that evidence when deciding on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (quoting Mack v. South Bay Beer Case 1:16-cv-00634-JMS-KJM Document 164 Filed 06/20/18 Page 20 of 43 PageID #: 5246 13 Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986)).