Arista Records LLC et al v. Lime Wire LLC et al

Filing 139

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 138 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits and Deposition Excerpts to Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by M.J.G. Lime Wire Family Limited Partnership, Lime Wire LLC, Lime Group LLC, Mark Gorton. (Baker, Charles)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ARISTA RECORDS LLC; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION; BMG MUSIC; CAPITOL RECORDS, INC.; ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC.; INTERSCOPE RECORDS; LAFACE RECORDS LLC; MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P.; PRIORITY RECORDS LLC; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; UMG RECORDINGS, INC.; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC.; and WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, v. LIME GROUP LLC; LIME WIRE LLC; MARK GORTON; GREG BILDSON, and M.J.G. LIME WIRE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Defendants. ECF CASE 06 CV. 5936 (GEL) DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITION EXCERPTS TO THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITION EXCERPTS Of counsel: Lauren E. Handler SDNY (LEH 6908) PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. 100 Southgate Parkway P.O. Box 1997 Morristown, NJ 07962-1997 (973) 538-5146 (Facsimile) (973) 889-4326 (Telephone) lehandler@pbn.com Charles S. Baker (CB1365) Joseph D. Cohen (JC3017) Susan K. Hellinger (SH8148) PORTER & HEDGES, LLP 1000 Main Street, 36th Floor Houston, Texas 77002-6336 (713) 226-6000 (Telephone) (713) 228-1331 (Facsimile) cbaker@porterhedges.com jcohen@porterhedges.com shellinger@porterhedges.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii I. II. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS...........................1 ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY ............................................................................10 A. B. C. D. E. III. Rules 401-403: Relevancy ........................................................................10 Rule 901: Authentication ..........................................................................11 Rules 801-803: Hearsay............................................................................11 Rule 106: Optional Completeness ............................................................13 Expert Reports ...........................................................................................13 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................14 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Bazak Int'l Corp. v. Tarrant Apparel Group, 378 F. Supp. 2d 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)..................................................................................1 Major v. Astrazeneca, Inc., 2006 WL 2640622 (N.D.N.Y. 2006) .................................................................................13 Marcic v. Reinauer Transp. Cos., 397 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2005)...............................................................................................12 Pappas v. Middle Earth Condo. Ass'n, 963 F.2d 534 (2d Cir. 1992)...............................................................................................12 Parker v. Reda, 327 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2003)...............................................................................................11 Phoenix Associates III v. Stone, 60 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 1995)...................................................................................................13 Riisna v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 568, 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)..........................................................................1 Santrayall v. Burrell, 993 F. Supp. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ....................................................................................11 United States v. Diaz, 878 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1989)...............................................................................................11 United States v. Gotti, 457 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)................................................................................13 United States v. Kaplan, 490 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2007)...............................................................................................10 United States v. Ruggiero, 928 F.2d 1289 (2d Cir. 1991).............................................................................................11 Winstead v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 77 Fed. App'x 267 (5th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................13 ii Statutes and Rules FED. R. EVID. 106 ...........................................................................................................................12 FED. R. EVID. 401 ...........................................................................................................................10 FED. R. EVID. 402 ...........................................................................................................................10 FED. R. EVID. 801 .....................................................................................................................11, 12 FED. R. EVID. 802 ...........................................................................................................................11 FED. R. EVID. 803 .....................................................................................................................11, 12 FED. R. EVID. 805 ...........................................................................................................................12 FED. R. EVID. 901 ...........................................................................................................................11 iii COME NOW, Defendants Lime Group LLC, Lime Wire LLC, Mark Gorton, and M.J.G. Lime Wire Family Limited Partnership (collectively, "Defendants") and file this Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibits and Deposition Excerpts to Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits and Deposition Excerpts and respectfully show the Court as follows: I. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment relies upon numerous inadmissible exhibits. However, the Court may consider only admissible evidence in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. Riisna v. Am. Broad. Cos., 219 F. Supp. 2d 568, 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Therefore, Defendants file these objections to Plaintiffs' exhibits and move to strike them from the summary judgment record.1 The admissibility of Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment exhibits is properly before the Court at this stage of the proceedings. "The principles governing admissibility of evidence apply equally on a motion for summary judgment as in trial." Bazak Int'l Corp. v. Tarrant Apparel Group, 378 F. Supp. 2d 377, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Defendants object to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment exhibits as follows: Exhibit No. 2 13 14 Exhibit Description Email from M. Gorton to G. Searle Email from M. Kotzen to J.K. Barret Slashdot Relevance2 Hearsay3 Authenticity;4 hearsay; hearsay within hearsay5 Objection 1 This Motion is being filed in addition to other motions filed by Defendants addressing their objections to Plaintiffs' summary judgment evidence. 2 George Seale's unsigned offer letter to work at Lime Wire LLC and Lime Spot LLC is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. See Section IIA infra for the argument and authority on relevance objections. 3 See Section IIC infra for the argument and authority on hearsay objections. 4 See Section IIB infra for the argument and authority on authenticity objections. 5 See Section IIC infra for the argument and authority on hearsay within hearsay objections. 1413926v2 1 Exhibit No. 15 17 26 27 31 33 35 39 42 43 44 Exhibit Description E-mail from S. Berlin to gdf@yahoogroups LimeWire >> ChangeLog LimeWire: Enabling Open Information Sharing, Rolling Stones search results LimeWire: Enabling Open Information Sharing, The Simpsons search results E-mail from User to LimeWire (attaching shared directory) E-mail from J. Dolcourt to P. Butler CNET Download.com LimeWire Download Page E-mail from A. Harris to G. Bildson E-mail from J. Pelzer to storedev@limewire Article: Is LimeWire Going Legit? Not Yet P2P Blog: Limewire wants to start contextual advertising, become the Google of the P2P space Kodak Easyshare Software Download Screenshots of 30 Sound Recordings E-mail from A. Fisk to travis@redswoosh The DCIA Conference & Exposition: P2P Media Summit LA Article: "An Analysis of Internet Content Delivery Systems" E-mail from A. Eisgrau to list@p2punited Sonic Solutions Press Release: Napster's Back Objection Relevance;6 hearsay Optional completeness rule7 Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Hearsay Hearsay; multiple exhibits in one Authenticity; hearsay Hearsay Relevance;8 hearsay Relevance;9 hearsay Hearsay 49 50 55 63 64 65 66 Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance;10 authenticity; hearsay Hearsay Relevance Relevance;11 authenticity; hearsay; hearsay within hearsay Relevance;12 authenticity; hearsay 6 Personal posts to gdf@yahoogroups.com are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. See Section IID infra for the argument and authority on optional completeness objections. 8 Lime Wire's potential creation of a digital music store and unknown individuals' comments regarding Lime Wire are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 9 Lime Wire's plans to sell music are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 10 Adam Fisk's personal statements after he left Lime Wire are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 11 These unauthenticated articles offering opinions on file-sharing are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 12 This article on Napster is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 7 1413926v2 2 Exhibit No. 67 69 75 77 81 82 83 84 85 87 89 90 91 92 96 97 100 102 103 105 107 13 14 Exhibit Description E-mail from M. Papish to info@mediabound Relevance13 E-mail chain (S. Cho to G. Bildson, et al.) Article: Online services vie to capture...Napster's users E-mails from S. Ward to M. Gorton, et al. E-mail from G. Bildson to J.K. Barret Google Customer Account Pages E-mail from G. Bildson to everyone@limepeer Several articles including: Napster surfers catch new free wave E-mail from G. Bildson to everyone@mail.limepeer E-mail from J.K. Barret to G. Bildson E-mail from G. Bildson to everyone@mail.limepeer Various promotional e-mails PC Pitstop: Napster and the File-Sharing Revolution Appendix I: Article Napster: The Hot Idea of the Year Several Articles Including: Privacy Pillages Music Industry LimeWire 2004 Marketing Plan E-mail from D. & R. Gorton to M. Gorton Google Customer Account Pages Yahoo! Advertising & Marketing Correspondence LimeWire: The Official Site for the Fastest File Sharing Program as the Planet LimeWire >> Faster than Kazaa and No Hearsay Objection Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity Hearsay Hearsay Hearsay Hearsay Hearsay Relevance;14 authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance; hearsay; authenticity Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay; multiple exhibits in one Authenticity Relevance;15 authenticity; hearsay Hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay This article on Napster is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. This article describing Lime Wire and BearShare is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 15 The opinions expressed by the author of the article and David Gorton are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 1413926v2 3 Exhibit No. 110 114 115 119 122 128 129 130 133 137 147 149 151 152 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 Exhibit Description bundled Software E-mail from G. Bildson to S. Berlin, et al Document by A. Harris Transcript of G. Bildson Interview French LimeWire Webpage (with Translation) Article: LimeWire Sees Usage Surge as Morpheus Falters Handwritten Notes (G. Bildson) E-mail from D. Nicponski to M. Formel E-mail from D. Nicponski to M. Formel Article: Leading Expert Examines Spyware and Adware in P2P Programs E-mail from J. Watkins to J.K. Barret Article: Tower May Go South Without Deal LimeWire Pro CD Sleeve Document Relating to LimeWire's Conversion Into a Legitimate P2P Client Lime Wire Music Blog Lime Wire Forums >> Admin Control Panel Lime Wire Forums >> Banned IP Page E-mail from S. Berlin to K. Faaborg and ewww@limewire Lime Wire Forums >> Admin Control Panel Lime Wire Forums >> Moderator's Lounge Lime Wire Forums >> Moderator's Lounge Lime Wire Forums >> Admin Control Panel Objection Hearsay; multiple exhibits in one Hearsay Authenticity; hearsay; no foundation Authenticity; hearsay Hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance;16 hearsay Relevance;17 hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance;18 hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance;19 authenticity; hearsay Relevance;20 authenticity Relevance;21 authenticity Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Meghan Formel and Dave Nicponski's opinions about Kazaa are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. Meghan Formel and Dave Nicponski's opinions about Kazaa are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 18 This article about Tower Records is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 19 This document regarding consequences of non-action or shutdown is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 20 Live @ Limewire sessions and the concerts promoted in these articles are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 21 LimeWire user banning options are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 17 16 1413926v2 4 Exhibit No. 162 163 165 167 168 169 170 171 174 175 176 177 178 179 184 187 189 190 192 193 194 196 197 22 23 Exhibit Description Lime Wire Forums >> Admin Control Panel Lime Wire Forums >> Private Message Board Lime Wire Forums >> Private Message Board Lime Wire Forums >> Banned IP Page Lime Wire Forums >> Private Message Board Gnutella Forums Gnutella Forums >> LimeWire Section Lime Wire Forums Private Messages Gnutella Forums >> Lime Wire Section Gnutella Forums >> Lime Wire Section Gnutella Forums >> G. Bildson Profile Page Gnutella Forums >> Private Message Board Numerous Gnutella Forums >> Lime Wire Section Gnutella Forums >> Lime Wire Section Email from K. Catillaz to C. Nicponski Gnutella Forums >> LimeWire Section Gnutella Forums >> Lime Wire Section Google Groups Message Board Gnutella Forums >> Lime Wire Section E-mail from A. Friedman to M. Gladys Talking Points for G. Bildson Article: File Sharers Thrive Under RIAA Threat Folder: Knowledge of Infringement and Objection Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance;22 authenticity; hearsay Relevance;23 authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance;24 authenticity; hearsay Relevance;25 authenticity; hearsay Relevance;26 authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Hearsay; hearsay within hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Hearsay Hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay The Gnutella Forums website is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. The Gnutella Forums website is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 24 The Gnutella Forums website is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 25 The Gnutella Forums website is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 26 The Gnutella Forums website is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 1413926v2 5 Exhibit No. 198 201 202 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 213 217 223 224 225 228 229 230 231 232 240 Exhibit Description Selected Contents Article: Music Industry Optimism Shaken, Rattled and Rolled Article: A Supreme Court Showdown for File Sharing Article: Lime Wire's Live Wire Gnutella Forums >> Lime Wire Section Yahoo! Groups--The Gnutella Developer Forum Yahoo! Groups--The Gnutella Developer Forum Yahoo! Groups--The Gnutella Developer Forum Yahoo! Groups--The Gnutella Developer Forum Yahoo! Groups--The Gnutella Developer Forum Sinead O'Connor Copyright Documents Article: Lime Wire 4.0 Out Today Apple iTunes Search Results LimeWire Options Gnutella Forums >> BearShare Section Lime Wire >> Support for BearShare hostiles.txt Gnutella Forums >> Lime Wire Section "Simpp" Related IP Addresses LimeWire Options A. Fisk Blog Post E-mail from S. Cho to A. Fisk E-mail from C. Rohrs to a Bang Networks employee Hearsay Objection Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance;27 authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance;28 authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay 27 28 The opinions of Aaron Walkhouse are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. Adam Fisk posted his comments after his employment with Lime Wire was terminated. 1413926v2 6 Exhibit No. 241 242 247 249 250 253 254 255 257 260 261 264 281 286 287 288 296 Exhibit Description Yahoo! Groups--The Gnutella Developer Forum Yahoo! Groups--The Gnutella Developer Forum Lime Wire Message Board E-mail from A. Fisk to S. Daswani, et al. E-mail from S. Osokine to A. Fisk E-mail from C. Rohrs to J. Chang E-mail from C. Rohrs to R.A. Morris E-mail from C. Rohrs to A. Fisk Gnutella Forums >> Lime Wire Section Article: Will Gnutella Get Morpheus Back on Track? Lime Wire >> Gnutella Network Good Citizen Tips E-mail from A. Fisk to F. von Lohman, M. Cuban, et al. E-mail from G. Bildson to Flanagan@flanaganconsulting Numerous documents re Filtering Declaration of Talmon Marco (Grokster litigation) Declaration of Talmon Marco (Grokster litigation) Numerous e-mails re Infringing Conduct by LimeWire Users Objection Authenticity; hearsay Hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Hearsay Relevance;29 hearsay Hearsay Hearsay; authenticity Hearsay; authenticity Hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Relevance;30 hearsay Hearsay Authenticity; hearsay; multiple exhibits in one Relevance;31 hearsay Relevance;32 hearsay Relevance;33 authenticity; hearsay; multiple exhibits in one The opinions of Serguei Osokine are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. Furthermore, these emails are dated after Adam Fisk's employment with Lime Wire was terminated. 30 The opinions of Serguei Osokine are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. Furthermore, this email is after Adam Fisk's employment with Lime Wire was terminated. 31 The statements and opinions of iMesh's President and Chief Marking Officer are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims; even more so when offered in a completely different case. 32 The statements and opinions of iMesh's President and Chief Marking Officer are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims; even more so when offered in a completely different case. 33 The opinions of random users are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims. 29 1413926v2 7 Exhibit No. 297 298 299 300 304 305 306 307 308 309 313 315 Exhibit Description E-mail from LimeWire User to webmaster@limewire E-mail from LimeWire User to webmaster@limewire Lime Wire User Testimonials Lime Wire User Testimonials E-mail from K. Kahn to ewww@limewire E-mail from K. Kahn to ewww@limewire E-mail from K. Kahn to ewww@limewire E-mail from service@limewire to ewww@limewire E-mail from service@limewire to Z. Balevsky Weedshare Homepage Yahoo! Groups--The Gnutella Developers Forum Article: Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Copyright Law After Napster Hearsay Hearsay Objection Hearsay; authenticity Hearsay; authenticity Hearsay Hearsay Hearsay Hearsay Hearsay Authenticity; hearsay Hearsay Relevance;34 authenticity; hearsay Additionally, Defendants object to the deposition testimony designated as exhibits in Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as follows: Deponent Berlin Page/Line 6:04 9:11 26:6 26:17 217:15 218:9 243:18 243:24 247:13 247:23 Relevance 35 Objection Speculation Speculation Assumes facts not in evidence; improper opinion question from a lay witness Speculation 34 35 The opinions of this author are irrelevant to this Lawsuit. Personal opinions regarding "stealing" are irrelevant to any issue in this Lawsuit. 1413926v2 8 Deponent Catillaz Page/Line 163:11 163:21 183:15 183:19 324:07 324:19 Objection Assumes facts not in evidence36 Speculation Improper lay opinion; speculation Speculation; assumes facts not in evidence Speculation Speculation Assumes facts not in evidence;37 compound question Assumes facts not in evidence;38 speculation Argumentative; speculation Overbroad, vague, speculation Authenticity; hearsay; no foundation Speculation; improper foundation Speculation Vague; overbroad Relevance39 Speculation Falco Fisk A. Gorton M. Gorton 157:23 158:11 153:7 154:5 101:21 102:9 88:18 24 484:2 485:21 503:17 503:25 Harris Horowitz Mercurio 108:14 108:24 Report 231:18 233:25 260:15 260:25 D. Nicponski 61:11 61:21 136:15 136:25 138:23 139:2 36 This portion of the transcript assumes that there were actual user testimonials posted in the French version of LimeWire, which Plaintiffs have not proven. 37 This section assumes that infringement could have been reduced or prevented, which Plaintiffs have not proven. 38 This portion of the transcript assumes that Lime Wire had to take action to comply with the Grokster ruling, which Plaintiffs have not proven. 39 This has to do with his work at BearShare and is therefore irrelevant. 1413926v2 9 Deponent Page/Line 139:3 139:25 142:13 143:25 161:22 164:25 Relevance40 Objection Speculation; relevance Relevance41 Speculation; hearsay; no foundation Speculation Speculation Speculation Hearsay; lay opinion Hearsay Randell Rohrs 34:19 35:22 97:15 98:18 112:24 113:06 119:03 119:21 Rubenfeld 151:13 152:24 251:18 252:13 254:07 254:23 Waterman Report Authenticity; hearsay; no foundation II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY A. Rules 401-403: Relevancy "`Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." FED. R. EVID. 401. "Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." FED. R. EVID. 402. Although relevance is a liberal standard, the proponent of evidence must still prove the following: "(1) [t]he evidence must be probative of the proposition it is being offered to prove, and (2) the proposition to be proved must be one that is of consequence to the determination of the action." United States v. Kaplan, 490 F.3d 110, 121 (2d 40 41 This has to do with his work at BearShare and is therefore irrelevant. This is his personal opinion and is irrelevant. 1413926v2 10 Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Diaz, 878 F.2d 608, 614 (2d Cir. 1989). If the proponent cannot demonstrate that the evidence is relevant, it is inadmissible. See Santrayall v. Burrell, 993 F. Supp. 173, 177) (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (precluding the admission of irrelevant evidence). B. Rule 901: Authentication Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility. FED. R. EVID. 901. Rule 901(a) further requires Plaintiffs to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that the documents on which they rely are what Plaintiffs claim that they are. United States. v. Ruggiero, 928 F.2d 1289, 1303 (2d Cir. 1991). Plaintiffs attempt to authenticate their summary judgment evidence via the Declaration of Katherine B. Forrest, an attorney for the law firm representing Plaintiffs. This is insufficient to authenticate the documents to which Defendants object on the basis of authenticity. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Ms. Forrest has personal knowledge sufficient to authenticate these documents. C. Rules 801-803: Hearsay Hearsay is not admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802. FED. R. EVID. 802. However, numerous of Plaintiffs' exhibits contain hearsay, out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. FED. R. EVID. 801. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not set forth the foundation to meet any of the hearsay exceptions contained in Rule 803. FED. R. EVID. 803. By way of example, Rule 803(6) provides an exception for business records. However, to meet the business records exception, Plaintiffs must provide testimony from the custodian of records or another qualified witness demonstrating that the documents were "kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and also that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the [record]." Parker v. Reda, 327 F.3d 211, 214-15 (2d Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs 1413926v2 11 have failed to set forth a foundation for the business record exception, or any other exception provided in Rule 803. Therefore, the documents to which Defendants object on the basis of hearsay should be excluded. Likewise, Plaintiffs' exhibits contain hearsay within hearsay and these statements do not meet the exceptions set forth in Rule 803. Therefore, the hearsay within hearsay must be excluded. FED. R. EVID. 805. Defendants anticipate that Plaintiffs will attempt to argue that some of the statements to which Defendants object on hearsay grounds are admissions by a party-opponent. Rule 801(d)(2)(D) provides that "a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship" is not hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2)(D). "In order to introduce evidence of an out-of-court statement as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), a party must lay a sufficient foundation by establishing `(1) the existence of the agency relationship, (2) that the statement was made during the course of the relationship, and (3) that it relates to a matter within the scope of the agency.'" Marcic v. Reinauer Transp. Cos., 397 F.3d 120, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Pappas v. Middle Earth Condo. Ass'n, 963 F.2d 534, 537 (2d Cir. 1992)). Plaintiffs have not established that the documents to which Defendants object herein are nonhearsay. excluded. See id. Specifically, Exhibits 15, 55, 165, 203, 231, 250, 254, 257, 261, 264 and 313 are not party admissions. These emails and posts to various websites were not made by Lime Wire employees within the course of their employment by Lime Wire. Instead, they are personal communications expressing the authors' individual views, not those of Lime Wire, and are inadmissible hearsay. Moreover, Exhibits 55, 203, 231, 250, and 264 contain correspondence from Adam Fisk that were created after his employment with Lime Wire was terminated. Since Therefore, they should be 1413926v2 12 he was not even an employee at the time that the correspondence was drafted, these Exhibits cannot constitute an admission by a party-opponent. D. Rule 106: Optional Completeness Federal Rule of Evidence 106 provides that "[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it." FED. R. EVID. 106. "The Second Circuit has `interpreted Rule 106 to require that a document be admitted when it is essential to explain an already admitted document, to place the admitted document in context, or to avoid misleading the trier of fact.'" United States v. Gotti, 457 F. Supp. 2d 395, 397-98 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (quoting Phoenix Associates III v. Stone, 60 F.3d 95, 102 (2d Cir. 1995)). Exhibit 17 does not include the entire fifty-three pages of the Change Log and the complete document must be included. E. Expert Reports Expert reports that are neither sworn nor verified are not competent summary judgment evidence. Winstead v. Ga. Gulf Corp., 77 Fed. App'x 267, 271 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Major v. Astrazeneca, Inc., Nos. 5:01-CV-618 (Lead) (FJS/GJD), 5:01-CV-1736 (Member) (FJS/GJD), 2006 WL 2640622, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. 2006) (stating that the report was not proper summary judgment evidence because it was not notarized or dated). The expert reports attached to the depositions of Ellis Horowitz, Ph.D. and Richard Waterman are neither sworn nor verified and are not admissible summary judgment evidence. 1413926v2 13 III. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment relies upon exhibits that are not relevant, have not been properly authenticated, and contain hearsay. The Exhibits objected to within this Memorandum of Law are inadmissible and must be excluded. Defendants request that the Court sustain Defendants' objections and grant this Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits to Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and exclude Plaintiffs' Exhibits objected to herein. Dated: September 26, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, Of counsel: Lauren E. Handler SDNY (LEH 6908) PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. 100 Southgate Parkway P.O. Box 1997 Morristown, NJ 07962-1997 (973) 538-5146 (Facsimile) (973) 889-4326 (Telephone) lehandler@pbn.com ____/s/__________________ Charles S. Baker (CB1365) Joseph D. Cohen (JC3017) Susan K. Hellinger (SH8148) PORTER & HEDGES, LLP 1000 Main Street, 36th Floor Houston, Texas 77002-6336 (713) 226-6000 (Telephone) (713) 228-1331 (Facsimile) cbaker@porterhedges.com jcohen@porterhedges.com shellinger@porterhedges.com Attorneys for Defendants 1413926v2 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that the foregoing pleading was filed by means of the Court's ECF system on the 26th day of September, 2008. Accordingly, it is assumed that all counsel of record received notice of this filing from the ECF system. Lead counsel, listed below, will also receive a courtesy copy via email. Katherine B. Forrest Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019-7475 (212) 474-1000 (212) 474-3700 (fax) Steven A. Hirsch Keker & Van Nest, LLP 710 Sansome St., San Francisco, California 9411 (415) 391- 5400 (415) 397-7188 (fax) ____________/s/________________ Charles S. Baker Karyn A. Temple Recording Industry Association of America 1025 F Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20004 (202) 775-0101 (202) 775-7253 (fax) 1413926v2 15