185 Citing briefs
Hornsby-Culpepper v. Ware et al
REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment , 64 MOTION for Summary Judgment
Filed February 13, 2017
’s Ex.12] Response: Defendants object to this paragraph on the grounds that it is a hearsay statement, to which no exception applies. Fed. R. Evid. 802, et seq. Further, the Case 1:15-cv-00347-SCJ-JKL Document 69-1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 59 of 67 60 document which Plaintiff references is neither complete nor authenticated.
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Biogen Idec Inc.
REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion
Filed April 17, 2017
A ¶ 66. FRE 802 On this issue, the Fiers Affidavit is an out-of-court statement Biogen attempts to use to prove the truth of the matter asserted with respect to production of beta interferon polypeptides. The Fiers Affidavit is therefore hearsay as to Biogen to which no exception applies.
Greene v. Skinny Girl Cocktails, LLC et al
RESPONSE/REPLY in Opposition re Statement of Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability
Filed February 13, 2012
The “evidence” she cites consists of the unverified allegations in the complaint, which are inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(2). Plaintiff has submitted no admissible evidence to show she or any putative class member ever bought the Skinny Girl Margarita product or why, or that any individual bought anything distributed by the SGC Defendants.
In Re: Wachovia Corp.
MOTION Administrative Motion Re: Briefing and Hearing on Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction; Declaration of T. Thomas Cottingham, III re MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order
Filed December 14, 2012
(FRE 1002). Hearsay (FRE 802). Lack of foundation (FRE 901).
Pledger et al v. Reliance Trust Company et al
REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment in Further Support of Their Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Additional Material Facts
Filed March 11, 2019
93). In addition, the evidence cited is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 802 and 805, to the extent it purports to be evidence supporting an alleged verbal agreement by Mr. Rawson to some Case 1:15-cv-04444-MHC Document 193 Filed 03/11/19 Page 285 of 374 286 unspecified “deal” regarding the Horizon Funds. 340.
Huskins et al. v. City of Vallejo et al.
RESPONSE
Filed September 1, 2016
Hearsay. FRE 802. Improper expert opinion.
Marvel Worldwide, Inc. et al v. Kirby et al
RESPONSE in Support re: 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to the Declarations of Eli Bard and James W. Quinn Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Document
Filed April 6, 2010
estate of Kirby.” FRE 802. Improper lay opinion as to what the “common practice” of book publishers is.
Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Peake et al
MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Objections to and Motion to Strike Declaration of Thomas G. Bowman
Filed November 27, 2007
Those conclusions are also premature in light of the fact that defense counsel has yet to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the individual requests and Plaintiffs’ proffered compromises to alleviate burden on Defendants. Paragraph 15, page 8 Federal Rule of Evidence 802, Hearsay. Declarant Bowman discusses out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Hummel v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
RESPONSE re: 28 Declaration in Opposition to Motion Objections to Declaration of Holly Hummel. Document
Filed August 13, 2008
[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).
Teen Model v. Parry et al
RESPONSE in Opposition re: 78 MOTION to Quash Certain Subpoenas Served on Non-Parties. MOTION for Sanctions. Objections to Evidence in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Quash. Document
Filed December 16, 2011
Also: argumentative; misstates the facts (Plaintiff and her parents were not subpoenaed, because they are parties to the action, and the notices of their depositions are not relevant to Plaintiff‟s motion to quash); irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 403) 5. Lannin Decl., Exhibit “G” Best Evidence Rule; hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 802) For all of the foregoing reasons, Brandy respectfully requests that the Court sustain Brandy‟s objections and strike the above-referenced evidence. Dated: Los Angeles, California December 16, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ By: ___________________________ Charles J. Harder (pro hac vice) WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP 11400 W. Olympic Blvd., Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Tel: (310) 478-4100 x255 Fax: (310) 479-1422 Email: CHarder@WRSlawyers.com Attorneys for Brandy & Melville N.Y., Inc.