Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507-1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:13291

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages TABLE OF CONTENTS.......i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........ii-iii A. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE ALL DOCUMENTS and EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT PRODUCED DURING DISCOVERY2-6 THE REED DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSABLE6-16 I. II. III. C. DECLARATION OF NEIL SANKEY..7-10 DECLARATION OF LISA SIMMONS...10-15 DECLARATION OF LISA POLICASTRO.15-16

B.

CONCLUSION,....16

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507-1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:13292

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s)

Beyene v. Coleman Security Servs, Inc., 854 F. 2d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988)...7, 11, 12, 14 Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980)...7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Cambridge Electronics Corp. v. MGA Electronics, Inc. 227 F.R.D. 313, 321 (C.D. Cal. 2004)...2 Huey v. UPS, Inc. 165 F. 3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999)...9, 15, 16 Orr v. Bank of America, NT& SA 285 F.3d 765, 773 (9th Cir. 2002)6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Ortiz-Lopez v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 2001)..3 Self-Ins. Inst.of America, Inc. v. Software and Info Indus. Ass'n., 208 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2000).............................................................2 Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp. 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001).2, 3 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Page(s) Rule 37...3 Rule 37(c)(1)..2 Rule 56(3) .6

ii

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507-1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:13293

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE Page(s) Fed. R. Evid. 402.10, 11, 12, 13 Fed. R. Evid. 403...15 Fed. R. Evid. 602...13 Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).10, 11, 13, 14 Fed. R. Evid. 802.9, 10, 11, 13, 14 Fed. R. Evid. 901.11, 12 Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).6

iii

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:13275

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

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : :

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS REQUEST TO STRIKE AND EVIDENTERY OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE REED DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date of Hearing: May 14, 2012 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D

vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Plaintiffs by and through their undersigned Counsel, hereby move the court to Strike the Declarations of Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro; and Exhibits A, B, and C attached to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons on the grounds these witnesses and documents were not supplied to the Plaintiffs in discovery, although Plaintiffs requested them. In the event the Court should decide not to strike the Reed Defendants Evidence, Plaintiffs object to the Declarations of Lisa Simmons

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:13276

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

and Exhibits A, B, and C attached thereto; Lisa Policastro; Neil Sankey and Exhibits A and B on the following grounds: A. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE ALL DOCUMENTS and EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT PRODUCED DURING DISCOVERY

Under Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is generally precluded from using evidence not disclosed as required under Rule 26(e)(1)1. See Cambridge Electronics Corp. v. MGA Electronics, Inc. 227 F.R.D. 313, 321 (C.D. Cal. 2004); Self-Ins. Inst.of America, Inc. v. Software and Info. Indus. Ass'n., 208 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Rule 37 provides that [i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a witness . . . as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness . . . to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The burden of demonstrating that the failure is substantially justified or harmless falls on the offending party. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp. 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001). As noted by the Ninth Circuit in Yeti, Rule 37 is intended to provide a strong inducement for disclosure, and a self-executing and automatic sanction for the
1

Rule 26(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that litigants have a continuing duty to supplement or correct all interrogatory responses and requests for production if their prior responses are either incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1); see also Cambridge Electronics Corp., 227 F.R.D. at 321.
Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:13277

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

failure to produce material during the discovery process. Id. at 1106 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 advisory committee's note (1993) and noting particularly wide latitude given to district courts to exclude evidence under this provision). Courts have upheld the striking of such evidence even when the litigants entire cause of action or defense has been precluded. Id. (citing Ortiz-Lopez v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 2001)). Nor is it necessary to show willful intent on the part of the offending party; exclusion is an appropriate remedy in the absence of bad faith or an explicit court order. See Yeti, 259 F.3d at 1106. Here the names and documents were not disclosed in the Reed Defendants Initial Disclosures and Plaintiffs propounded discovery on all the Reed Defendants and requested the identity of individuals with knowledge of facts relevant to this case. Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro were not disclosed or produced. Plaintiffs also asked for the production of documents relevant to this case. The Reed

Defendants failed to identify the witnesses, Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro or turn over any information or documents, and instead present them in their Motion for Summary Judgment for the first time, as a tactical advantage over the Plaintiffs. See the Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire, pp. 6-8, 22-25, 17, 21-22, 49-53 and Exhibits 1, 3 and 4 attached to the Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire

duty to supplement or correct all interrogatory responses and requests for production if their prior
Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:13278

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

(The Reed Defendants Response to Interrogatories served upon Accurint2) at pages 41-45, Exhibit 3, Interrogatory No.s 1, 2, 6, 16, 19, 20 and 24 at pages 57-58, 62, 70-72 and 75-76; Exhibit 4, Request for Production No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pages 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, and 97. By way of illustration, the following unproduced documents were attached as exhibits to the Declaration of Lisa Simpson: Application for services between Todd Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc. and IRBsearch, LLC; See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons; LexisNexis Risk & Analytics Group Application and Agreement attached to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons as Exhibit B; and Accurint and IRBsearch, LLC Re-Seller Agreement attached to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons as Exhibit C. All of these types of documents were the subject of specific discovery requests. See, e.g., Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire, pp. 22-25, 49-53; Exhibit 1 at pages 41-45, Exhibit 3, Interrogatory No.s 1, 2, 6, 16, 19, 20 and 24 at pages 57-58, 62, 70-72 and 75-76; Exhibit 4, Request for Production No.s
2

All the Discovery served on each of the Reed Defendants entities named in this lawsuit received similar if not the same discovery requests, but Accurint called LNRDMI by the Reed Defendants in their Motion for Summary Judgment, is the only Defendant who gave any type of response. All the other responses from the other Reed Defendants were nothing more than boilerplate objections as shown in Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 attached hereto at pages 117-174.

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:13279

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

3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pages 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97 (Plaintiffs January 13, 2012 First Request for Production) (requesting, inter alia, All documents with the permissible purpose obtained from each Defendant provided access to the Plaintiffs data and all documents reflecting the verification process; All contracts, agreements, documents and informationconcerning agreements and correspondence with third-parties, including but not limited to Merlin, Intelius, Inc.to obtain consumer, customers and/or Plaintiffs peoplefinder data3, Personal Identifiers, Financial Data, Personal Identifying data, Criminal Data; All documents, data compilations, and tangible things that You may use to support Your defenses to the claims in Plaintiffs complaint; All documents concerning, regarding or referring to theGrammLeach Bliley Act, including but not limited to agreements, requirements, policies, etc.; and All searches performed on any of the Plaintiffs and all Plaintiffs reports sold to third parties; and All documentation,

correspondence, information and data, in all forms including electronically, pertaining to Plaintiffs, provided to and shared with all

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:13280

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
3

your affiliates, controlled and uncontrolled, business aggregates, 3rd party entitiesand any other business, corporation. Plaintiffs have been denied the opportunity to analyze these documents; been denied the ability to depose and examine Defendants Employees, Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro; and resellers of the Reed Defendants, including IRBsearch, LLC. The Reed Defendants had ample opportunity to disclose this information. The Court should strike these unproduced documents; and the testimony (Declarations) of Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. B. THE REED DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSABLE

When ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, a trial Court can only consider admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(3); Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA 285 F.3d 765, 773 (9th Cir. 2002). Documents must be authenticated or the Court will not consider them. Orr, 285 F.3d at 773, see also Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). In addition to Plaintiffs Request for the Court to Strike the evidence outlined above, Plaintiffs object to the evidence submitted by the Reed Defendants in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Peoplefinder data is defined in the Request for Production of Documents as name, Social Security number, date of birth, etc. that identifies a specific person.
Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:13281

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

I.

DECLARATION OF NEIL SANKEY

Plaintiffs object to Neil Sankeys Declaration paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 on pages 2-5 and Exhibits A and B attached thereto and referenced in the paragraphs, on the ground that the statements and exhibits lack foundation and, thus, are not properly authenticated pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Beyene v. Coleman Security Servs, Inc., 854 F. 2d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988) (for purposes of Summary Judgment, attaching upon mere assertion that they were true and correct copies of exhibits was insufficient to lay a foundation and authenticate the attached documents absent personal knowledge of the facts in the documents); see also Orr, 285 F. 3d at 773-774, 777 (affidavit must lay a foundation to authenticate discovery documents). Here paragraph 3 lacks foundation. The declaration cannot establish Neil Sankeys personal knowledge as he did not obtain Exhibits A and B or the information referenced. Plaintiffs object to this paragraph on the ground that it

constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Similarly paragraph 4 makes a bare assertion that the attached Exhibits A is genuine by stating that a true and correct copy is attached of a document obtained from a criminal case. The paragraph fails to lay a foundation because it

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:13282

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

does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of genuineness. This paragraph and Exhibit A have not been authenticated and are inadmissible. Exhibit A

contains the PACER header showing Neil Sankey downloaded the document from Defendant Orly Taitzs filing of July 11, 2011, Docket No. 283-2 and not from any court as claimed. Plaintiffs further object to this paragraph and Exhibit A on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Paragraph 5 makes a bare assertion that the attached Exhibit B is genuine by stating that A true and correct copy is attached of a document obtained from a bankruptcy. The paragraph fails to lay a foundation because it does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of genuineness. This paragraph and Exhibit B have not been authenticated and is inadmissible. Further, Exhibit B contains the PACER header showing Neil Sankey downloaded the document from Defendant Orly Taitz and her Attorney, Peter Cook, Esquires filing of July 11, 2011, Docket No.s 280-4 and 283-5 and not from any Court as claimed. Plaintiffs further object to this paragraph and Exhibit B on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:13283

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

hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Paragraph 7 lacks foundation. The declaration cannot establish Neil

Sankeys personal knowledge of the information referenced in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 602. The IRBsearch, LLC account is in the name of and maintained by Todd Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. Plaintiffs object to this paragraph on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Finally, Plaintiffs object to the Reed Defendants citation of Neil Sankeys Declaration and Exhibits A and B attached thereto, for the reasons outlined above, in its [Proposed] Statement of Uncontroverted Facts on pages 7, 18-20, 29, 55-60; Motion, page 1, number (v), lines 17-18; and Memorandum, p. 4, A, lines 5-9; p. 8-9, footnote 3, for Summary Judgment on the ground that it fails to cite to the page and line numbers in each Exhibit and in the Declaration where the referenced information may be located. This defect alone warrants exclusion of the evidence. See Huey v. UPS, Inc. 165 F. 3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999)

([J]udges need not paw over the files without assistance from the parties). Orr,

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:13284

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

285 F. 3d at 775.

Plaintiffs further object on the basis outlined above, the

Declaration and Exhibits are inadmissible hearsay and Neil Sankey lacks personal knowledge. II. DECLARATION OF LISA SIMMONS

Plaintiffs object to Lisa Simmons [Simmons] Declaration at p. 5, 4, lines 1-10 and Exhibit A in that it lacks foundation, is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible, Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs further object on the basis it is

inadmissible hearsay, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it, Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802; Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiffs objection is further based on the facts the declaration cannot establish Lisa Simmons personal knowledge, Fed. R. Evid. 602. Plaintiffs object to Simmons Declaration at p. 5, lines 7-10 and Exhibit A in that it makes a bare assertion that the attached Exhibit A is genuine by stating that a true and correct copy is attached of a document created by in entered into by IRBsearch, LLC. The paragraph fails to lay a foundation because it does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of genuineness. This paragraph and Exhibit A have not been authenticated and are inadmissible on the ground that the statements and exhibits lack foundation and, thus, are not properly

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

10

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:13285

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

authenticated pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Beyene v. Coleman Security Servs, Inc., 854 F. 2d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988) (for purposes of Summary Judgment, attaching upon mere assertion that they were true and correct copies of exhibits was insufficient to lay a foundation and authenticate the attached documents absent personal knowledge of the facts in the documents); see also Orr, 285 F. 3d at 773-774, 777 (affidavit must lay a foundation to authenticate discovery documents). Plaintiffs further object to this paragraph and Exhibit A on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiffs object to Simmons Declaration at p. 6, 11-12 in its entirety as it lacks foundation and is irrelevant to the Plaintiffs claims against the Reed Defendants and therefore is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402 Plaintiffs object to Simmons Declaration at p. 6, 12, lines 6-8 and Exhibit B in that it makes a bare assertion that the attached Exhibit A is genuine by stating that a true and correct copy is attached of a document. The paragraph fails to lay a foundation because it does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of genuineness. This paragraph and Exhibit B have not been authenticated and are

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

11

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:13286

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

inadmissible on the ground that the statements and exhibits lack foundation and, thus, are not properly authenticated pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Beyene v. Coleman Security Servs, Inc., 854 F. 2d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988) (for purposes of Summary Judgment, attaching upon mere assertion that they were true and correct copies of exhibits was insufficient to lay a foundation and authenticate the attached documents absent personal knowledge of the facts in the documents); see also Orr, 285 F. 3d at 773-774, 777 (affidavit must lay a foundation to authenticate discovery documents). Plaintiffs object to Simmons Declaration at pp. 6-7, 13 and Exhibit C in its entirety as it lacks foundation in that it is irrelevant to Plaintiffs claims against the Reed Defendants and therefore inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs object to Simmons Declaration at p. 7, lines 1-20 and Exhibit C in that it makes a bare assertion that the attached Exhibit C is genuine by stating that a true and correct copy is attached of a document. The paragraph fails to lay a foundation because it does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of genuineness. This paragraph and Exhibit B have not been authenticated and are inadmissible on the ground that the statements and exhibits lack foundation and, thus, are not properly authenticated pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Beyene v. Coleman Security Servs, Inc., 854 F. 2d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988) (for

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

12

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:13287

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

purposes of Summary Judgment, attaching upon mere assertion that they were true and correct copies of exhibits was insufficient to lay a foundation and authenticate the attached documents absent personal knowledge of the facts in the documents); see also Orr, 285 F. 3d at 773-774, 777 (affidavit must lay a foundation to authenticate discovery documents). Plaintiffs further object on the grounds these paragraphs and Exhibit C are irrelevant to the claims Plaintiffs have against the Reed Defendants. Any agreements the Reed Defendants enter into with third parties are between the Reed Defendants and the third party and have no relevancy to Plaintiffs claim and therefore are inadmissible, Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs object to Simmons Declaration at pp. 7-8, 14 in its entirety on the basis it lacks personal knowledge in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 602 and is inadmissible hearsay, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it, Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802; Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980).4 Plaintiffs object to Simmons Declaration at pp. 8, 15 in its entirety on the basis Simmons lacks personal knowledge in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 602 and is inadmissible hearsay, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it,
4

In the Reed Defendants Proposed Undisputed Facts, number 43, the Reed Defendants state their evidence is Simmons Declaration at 14. Simmons Decl. at 14 refers to Neil Sankeys agreement with IRBsearch, LLC and not the Agreement between the Reed Defendants and IRBsearch, LLC as claimed.
Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

13

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:13288

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

Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802; Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiffs further object to Simmons reference to Exhibit A in her Declaration at p. 7, line 5 as this paragraph and Exhibit A in that they fail to lay a foundation because it does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of genuineness. This paragraph and Exhibit A have not been authenticated and are inadmissible on the ground that the statements and exhibits lack foundation and, thus, are not properly authenticated pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Beyene v. Coleman Security Servs, Inc., 854 F. 2d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988) (for purposes of Summary Judgment, attaching upon mere assertion that they were true and correct copies of exhibits was insufficient to lay a foundation and authenticate the attached documents absent personal knowledge of the facts in the documents); see also Orr, 285 F. 3d at 773-774, 777 (affidavit must lay a foundation to authenticate discovery documents). Plaintiffs object to Simmons Declaration at p. 8, 15 in its entirety on the basis Simmons lacks personal knowledge in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 602 and it is inadmissible hearsay, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it, Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802; Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980).

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

14

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:13289

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

Plaintiffs object to the Reed Defendants citation of Lisa Simmons Declaration and Exhibits A, B and C attached thereto, for the reasons outlined above, in its [Proposed] Statement of Uncontroverted Facts on pages 7-17, 30-33, 35-45, 48; Motion, page 1, number (iii), lines 15-16; and Memorandum, p. 4, II, lines 10-20; p. 5, B , lines 10-28; p.6, B, lines 1-19, p. 6, B, line 27; p. 7, B, lines 1-28; p. 8, lines 1-3; p. 8, (b), lines 21-28; and p. 12, A, lines 12,-22 and footnote 5, lines 23-28, for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs further object on the ground that it fails to cite to the page and line numbers in each Exhibit attached to the Declaration where the referenced information may be located. This defect alone warrants exclusion of the evidence. See Huey v. UPS, Inc. 165 F. 3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999) ([J]udges need not paw over the files without assistance from the parties). Orr, 285 F. 3d at 775. III. DECLARATION OF LISA POLICASTRO

Plaintiffs object to the Declaration of Lisa Policastro [Policastro] at p. 2, 3, lines 20-22 on the grounds it is misleading and confusing the issues in that Policastro states at 5 at p. 3 that it is a matter of standard operating practice the Reed Defendants did not retain records of which items of data were returned in response to a search criteria, only the criteria used for the search or report, thereby causing unfair prejudice and therefore must be precluded, Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

15

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507 Filed 04/20/12 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:13290

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

Plaintiffs object to the Reed Defendants citation of Lisa Policastros Declaration, for reasons outlined above, in its [Proposed] Statement of Uncontroverted Facts on pages 1-2, 10, 13, 17, 5, 37, 41, 52; Motion, page 1, number (iii), lines 15-16; and Memorandum, p. 2, A. lines 14-17; p. 5, B, lines 26-28; p. 6, B, lines 1-3; p. 6, B, lines 21-27, p. 8, p. 2, A. lines 14-17; p. 5, B, lines 26-28; p. 6, B, lines 1-3; and p. 6, C, lines 5-10. for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs further object on the ground that it fails to cite to the page and line numbers in each Exhibit attached to the Declaration where the referenced information may be located. This defect alone warrants exclusion of the evidence. See Huey v. UPS, Inc. 165 F. 3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999) ([J]udges need not paw over the files without assistance from the parties). Orr, 285 F. 3d at 775. C. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to sustain the above objections and strike the evidence referenced above. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 20, 2012

/s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

16

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507-2 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:13294

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

Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867) E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659 Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al, : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : Defendants. : :

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs
Request to Strike and Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence in Opposition to the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment was served through the ECF filing system this 20th day of April 2012 upon the following:

James F McCabe Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Email: jmccabe@mofo.com Attorney for Defendants: Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; LexisNexis; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint; Choicepoint, Inc.

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Request to Strike and Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 507-2 Filed 04/20/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:13295

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

Marc Steven Colen, Esq. Law Offices of Marc Steven Colen 5737 Kanan Road, Ste. 347 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Email: mcolen@colenlaw.com Attorney for Defendants: Todd Sankey; and The Sankey Firm, Inc. Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Attorney for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. Kim Schumann, Esquire Jeffrey P. Cunningham, Esquire SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP 3100 Bristol Street, Suite 400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Email: pcookA@srrlawfirm.com Attorney for Defendants Orly Taitz; Orly Taitz, Inc.; and Law Offices of Orly Taitz /s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Request to Strike and Objections to the Reed Defendants Evidence