Objection No. 11: Statement: “I do not believe the redevelopment … indicated they will charge.” (Page 6, ¶ 21, at lines 8-12) Objection: Irrelevant, FRE 402; Lacks foundation, FRE 602; Hearsay not within any exception, if offered to prove actual affordability, rent levels, or number of “larger homes” in new development, FRE 801, 802. Response: “All relevant evidence is admissible,” pursuant to FRE 402.

Spivak Decl., ¶ 87. Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801). The declarant’s statement of what plaintiff testified is inadmissible hearsay.

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.

Thus, Callejas’s testimony itself can be reduced to an admissible form because it concerns statements made by the declarants “while testifying at the current trial or hearing.” See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); J.F. Feeser, 909 F.2d at 1542. b. General Challenge to the Chevron Attorneys Affidavits Defendants do not challenge any specific statements in the Racines, Campuzano, and Carvajal affidavits.

Motion in Limine No. 10: Motion In Limine #10 To Exclude Any Reference To The Order Denying The Defendants’ Motions For Summary Judgment Defendant Corizon joins in Defendant Sancho’s Motion in Limine No. 10 A Court order is hearsay because it is a statement, other than one made by a declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is not admissible without an applicable exception. Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802; United States v. Sine 493 F.3d 1021, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). The introduction of judicial fact findings and analysis underlying an order to prove the truth of those findings and 126 1804815.

These e-mails are non-hearsay because they are not offered for their truth, but are relevant simply to show that these invitations were offered to defendant, a fact that cannot be disputed. See advisory committee notes to Fed.R.Evid. 801. A second broad category of e-mails are requests from Abramoff to defendant in which Abramoff specifically asks defendant for advice, help or information on GSA operations.

doc 9 Case 3:09-cv-00756 Document 128 Filed 02/16/2010 Page 9 of 19 of the definition was correct, the words “while testifying at the trial or hearing” in the Rule would be entirely superfluous. Additionally, an unsworn expert report does not satisfy the requirements for an admissible prior witness statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1). The Federal Rules of Evidence simply do not make a declarant’s out-of-court statements non-hearsay simply because the declarant later testifies in court; only the in-court testimony (i.e., statement made “while testifying at the trial or hearing”) is non-hearsay.

Thus, the statements in America And the Final Trap are coconspirator statements by virtue of their being about defendant’s mission and being released to the public. As a result, the statements fall within Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and are admissible. -14- 2:10-cr-20005-NGE-DAS Doc # 89 Filed 09/09/11 Pg 16 of 18 Pg ID 510 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should admit (1) the expert testimony of the Al Qaeda expert; (2) the expert testimony regarding martyrdom; and (3) the segment of America And the Final Trap; and (4) the portion of Inspire magazine.

See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d). 3. It is the Content, Not the Form, of the Challenged Evidence That Needs to Be Independently Admissible at Trial. In the same way, defense reliance on Fed.R.Evid. 804's hearsay exception and resultant claim that the text of the prior trial and deposition transcripts will not be independently admissible at trial (DOB at 5-6), reveals that defendants have missed a very basic procedural point.

To the extent the declarant invites the Court to draw an inference between the amount of work the declarant was expected to perform and some wage- and-hour violation that would give rise to class certification, the declarant’s statement lacks foundation and is speculative. Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801). The declarant’s statement regarding the content of purported text messages and emails sent by Alyssa Kojima, Wayne Comstock, David Lake, Daniella Peregretti and Eman Abyass is inadmissible hearsay.