Zako Dec., ¶ 4: “At the time I submitted my application my monthly mortgage payment was approximately over 35% of my monthly income and I owed Defendants over 30% more than my home was worth.” Lack of foundation (FRE 901). Improper opinion (FRE 701, 702).

Rak Decl., ¶ 7. Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R. Evid. 901). The declarant does not establish any basis on which to conclude that the declarant was entitled to premium wages on days when the declarant allegedly did not take a compliant meal or rest break.

71. The Connexus Defendants object to this paragraph and Exhibit R as lacking authentication (Fed. R. Evid. 901) and lacking foundation (Fed. R. Evid. 602). 72.

For these reasons, Defendants objections to these portions of magazines and periodicals containing Defendants' own advertisements and other public statements should be overruled. See Fed. R. Evid. 901, 902. b. Authenticity: Altered Defendants provided millions of pages of documents to the United States in discovery.

The remainder of Defendant’s “foundation” argument is obviously an attack on the weight of this evidence, which Defendant was free to make in her brief. This document is properly authenticated as an “ancient” document pursuant to FRE 901(b)(8), since it is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity, it was in a place where it would likely be if authentic (i.e., the French Embassy to which it was sent, which stamped the correspondence as received by its “Service Commercial” on May 18, 1983), and “is at least 20 years old when offered.” (It is, in fact, over 31 years old.)

As set forth previously, Exhibits B through K reflect an appearance, content, internal patterns ( i.e. the use of standardized forms by the Navy) and other distinctive characteristics, which take in conjunction with the circumstances that they were obtained from governmental agencies, serve to authenticate these documents. Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8) allows ancient documents or data compilations to be authenticated by evidence of a condition that creates no suspicion about their authenticity, that they were in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and are at least 20 years old when offered. The Navy records at issue here can be said to be such documents.

41, 42, 43 for the following reasons: (1) FRE 901: Defendants have failed to authenticate Exs. 41, 42, 43 pursuant to FRE 901(b)(1), testimony of a witness with knowledge, or FRE 901(b)(9), evidence describing the process or system by which Exs. 41, 42, 43 was generated and showing that it produces an accurate result.

And other documents in Plaintiffs’ chain of title to the Picture qualify as “ancient documents,” in that they are in a condition that creates no suspicion about their authenticity,10 they are in a place where, if authentic, they would likely be, and they are more than 20 years old when offered. Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(8). VII.

Exhibits 15 and 16 are completely illegible photocopies. As they cannot be read, it cannot be determined whether they can be authenticated under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 902 and whether they are relevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. See, e.g., Curtis v. Clarian Health-Indiana Neurology Clinic, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18753, *15 n.2 (“[T]he Court will not consider illegible portions of the exhibits.”)

This exhibit can be authenticated on the stand by Mr. Wicander, Mr. Varrone, Mr. Wade, or any number of Defendants’ witnesses. See Fed. R. Evidence 901(b)(1). Plaintiffs will provide clean copies of this exhibit without markings to rectify Defendant’s other concerns.