Gifford Decl., ¶ 29. Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402). The declarant’s experience during her training is irrelevant to this action, which relates to the claims of ETL- APs in California.

To the extent the declarant wants the Court to infer that no other ETL-APs performed certain tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks foundation and is speculative. Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402). That the declarant and other ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to perform these tasks, which are outside the scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is irrelevant to whether Target is liable for some wage-and-hour violation that would give rise to class certification.

, 38:13– 21, 161:2–162:15. FRE 401, 402, and 403 The cited portions of Mr. Fisk’s deposition transcript do not support Biogen’s statement, and Biogen mischaracterizes Mr. Fisk’s testimony. Thus, the deposition testimony is inadmissible as irrelevant because it has no tendency to make Biogen’s purported fact more or less probable than it would be without the deposition testimony.

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without that evidence. Fed. R. Evid. §401. Evidence that is otherwise relevant may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

P202 P203 USA only reviewed Officer Sherman report when it received Plaintiff’s claim for Exh.DKG 10 (USA responses to Rog I no. 12), App.330; Undisputed Objection. FRE 401. Case 2:15-cv-01585-FMO-JC Document 74-1 Filed 11/10/16 Page 317 of 325 Page ID #:2624 318 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 damages.

For these reasons, allowing the Defendants to suggest that the error requirement of reissue was improper based upon Mr. Waraksa or Mr. Moscovitch's intent would be contrary to law and irrelevant, and would be unduly prejudicial and would certainly confuse the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. Finally, as discussed in more detail in Plaintiffs' Response to Ergotron's Summary Judgment Motion for Invalidity, see Docket No. 494, a reissue application is proper if the 29 Case 2:06-cv-00272-LED Document 582 Filed 10/20/08 Page 29 of 33 PageID #: 19130 attomey failed to appreciate the scope of the claim.

19. Hearsay, FRE 801(c); lack of foundation/lack of personal knowledge, FRE 602; irrelevant, FRE 401; improper expert testimony, FRE 701, 703-706; not disclosed in discovery or moving papers. 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.

RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental SOUF ¶ 29 is entirely inadmissible per FRE 401-402 as irrelevant. Each SPD at issue contains, in writing, unambiguous reservation of rights provisions stating Kraft Heinz’s right to amend or terminate the plans.

’s TRO application Case No. 3:15-cv-3522 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 (FRE 403); Speculative (FRE 403) 21 Speculative (FRE 403); Argumentative (FRE 403); Improper opinion (FRE 701) 22 Irrelevant (FRE 401, 402); Argumentative (FRE 403); Improper opinion (701). 3-33 Declaration of Mark Mellor 1-15 Irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) 3-34 Declaration of Vicki Saporta 5-9 Irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) 10 (lines 8-17) Irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) 12-13 Irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) 14-16 Irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) 19 Irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) Case3:15-cv-03522-WHO Document22 Filed08/03/15 Page3 of 34 iii Defs.’ response re: Pl.

Such evidence could create prejudice in the jury based on a possible anti-litigation, or anti-class action litigation sentiment or bias. Accordingly, such arguments and evidence should be precluded because they are irrelevant under FRE 401. Furthermore, introduction of this evidence would create the risk of unfair prejudice and would be a waste of the Court's and the jury's and is therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.