Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.

Filing 160

OBJECTIONS to 157 Document E-Filed Under Seal: Opposition to Netlist's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement and in Support of Google's Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement filed by Netlist, Inc.. (Hansen, Steven) (Filed on 7/6/2010) Modified on 7/7/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
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 PRUETZ LAW GROUP LLP Adrian M. Pruetz (Bar No. CA 118215) E-mail: ampruetz@pruetzlaw.com Erica J. Pruetz (Bar No. CA 227712) E-mail: ejpruetz@pruetzlaw.com 200 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1525 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 765-7650 Facsimile: (310) 765-7641 LEE TRAN & LIANG APLC Enoch H. Liang (Bar No. CA 212324) E-mail: ehl@ltlcounsel.com Steven R. Hansen (Bar No. CA 198401) E-mail: srh@ltlcounsel.com Edward S. Quon (Bar No. 214197) E-mail: eq@ltlcounsel.com 601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4025 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-3737 Facsimile: (213) 612-3773 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant NETLIST, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION GOOGLE, INC., Plaintiff, vs. NETLIST, INC., Defendant. CASE NO. C-08-04144 SBA [Related to CASE NO. C-09-05718 SBA] DEFENDANT NETLIST, INC.'S OBJECTION TO GOOGLE INC.'S EVIDENCE Date: Time: Place: Judge: July 27, 2010 1:00 p.m. Courtroom 3 Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. NETLIST'S OBJECT. TO GOOGLE'S EVID. ISO GOOGLE'S MSJ OF NON-INFRINGEMENT C-08-04144 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 Dated: Defendant Netlist, Inc. hereby objects to the following evidence presented by Plaintiff Google, Inc. in connection with the motions for summary judgment set for hearing on July 27, 2010 before this court: 1. Transcript of deposition of Robert Sprinkle, dated February 18, 2010: page 128, line 17 through page 130, line 24. This portion of Mr. Sprinkle's transcript is cited in Google's Opposition to Netlist's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement and Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement at pages 11 and 14 (Docket No. 152). This evidence is objected to on the ground that it is inadmissible for lack of personal knowledge and as hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 602, 802; Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) ("A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment."). The witness affirmatively asserted a lack of personal knowledge on the subject. See Sprinkle Dep. at 124:17-125:9 (Hansen Reply Decl., Ex. 1); see also id. at 133:4-9; 135:10-12; 135:19-136:23; 137:17-18; 142:11-16; 143:9-12; 144:5-10; 146:8-11; 147:13-17; 156:10-12. As a Google corporate designee under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), Mr. Sprinkle's testimony is admissible against Google without a showing of personal knowledge, however, Google cannot rely on Mr. Sprinkle's testimony given his lack of personal knowledge on the subject of the above-referenced testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3); Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Defendant Netlist, Inc. will respectfully request the court at the hearing on the motions to sustain the above objections and to strike the evidence referred to above. July 6, 2010 LEE TRAN & LIANG, APLC By: /s/ Steven R. Hansen Steven R. Hansen Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant NETLIST, INC. 1 NETLIST'S OBJECT. TO GOOGLE'S EVID. ISO GOOGLE'S MSJ OF NON-INFRINGEMENT C-08-04144

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?