PhoneDog, LLC v. Kravitz

Filing 15

OBJECTIONS to re 6 Declaration in Support, 5 Declaration in Support by PhoneDog, LLC. (Kirke, John) (Filed on 8/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

JOHN C. KIRKE, #175055
SOPHIA E.C. SCHWARTZ, #272915
DONAHUE GALLAGHER WOODS LLP
Attorneys at Law
1999 Harrison Street, 25th Floor
Oakland, California 94612-3520
P.O. Box 12979
Oakland, California 94604-2979
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff
PHONEDOG, LLC

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

PHONEDOG, LLC, a Delaware
corporation,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474-MEJ
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF
CARY KLETTER AND NOAH KRAVITZ
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

NOAH KRAVITZ, an individual,
Defendant.

Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:

September 15, 2011
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom B - 15th Floor
Maria-Elena James

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO KLETTER AND KRAVITZ DECLARATIONS

CASE NO. 11-CV-03474-MEJ

1
2

PLAINTIFF PHONEDOG, LLC ("PHONEDOG") HEREBY OBJECTS TO THE
DECLARATION OF CARY KLETTER ON THE GROUNDS SET FORTH
BELOW:

3

Paragraph 6.

4

"Attached hereto as "Exhibit B" is a true and correct copy of the Twitter Terms of Service

5

I

governing Twitter accounts."

6

Objections: PhoneDog objects to the sixth paragraph of Kletter's declaration because

7

Kletter lacks personal knowledge of the matter and these statements lack foundation. Fed. R.

8

Evid. 602.

9

accounts, is also inadmissible because it is hearsay, not properly authenticated and it is not the

10

Moreover, Exhibit B, the alleged Twitter Terms of Service governing Twitter

original writing. Fed. R. Evid. 802, 901 & 1002.

11

Paragraph 7.

12

"Attached hereto as "Exhibit C" is a true and correct copy of the Twitter Rules governing

13

Twitter accounts."

14

Objections: PhoneDog objects to the sixth paragraph of Kletter's declaration because

15

Kletter lacks personal knowledge of the matter and these statements lack foundation. Fed. R.

16

Evid. 602. Moreover, Exhibit C, the alleged Twitter Rules governing Twitter accounts, is also

17

inadmissible because it is hearsay, not properly authenticated and it is not the original writing.

18

Fed. R. Evid. 802, 901 & 1002.

19

II

PLAINTIFF PHONEDOG, LLC HEREBY OBJECTS TO THE DECLARATION
OF NOAH KRAVITZ ON THE GROUNDS SET FORTH BELOW:

20
21

Paragraph 7.

22

"I have always used the Account to create and disseminate information regarding my

23

personal and professional life. Attached hereto as "Exhibit A" are true and correct copies of some

24

examples of my tweets while I was employed at PhoneDog. Although they show the handle

25

"@noahkravitz", because I had already changed the handle at the time I printed them out, they

26

were originally tweeted under the "@PhoneDog_Noah" handle."

27
28

Objections:

PhoneDog objects to the seventh paragraph of Kravitz's declaration as

follows: Exhibit A, the alleged examples of Kravitz's tweets, is inadmissible because it is not the
-1EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO KLETTER AND KRAVITZ DECLARATIONS

CASE NO. 11-CV-03474-MEJ