Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 126

Reply to Opposition re 104 MOTION in Limine Defendants' Motion in Limine #1 to Exclude Testimony of J. Andrew Coombs filed byAkanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc., Steven Chen. (Lowe, James) (Filed on 3/16/2009)

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al

Doc. 126

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

GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES David A. Gauntlett (SBN 96399) James A. Lowe (SBN 214383) Brian S. Edwards (SBN 166258) Christopher Lai (SBN 249425) 18400 Von Karman, Suite 300 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc. and Steve Chen UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A., Plaintiff, vs. AKANOC SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: C 07-3952 JW (HRL) DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO VUITTON'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE #1 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF J. ANDREW COOMBS

164431.2-10562-002-3/16/2009

DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO VUITTON'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE #1 ­ C 07-3952 JW

Dockets.Justia.com

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.

COOMBS' LETTERS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IF COOMBS DOES NOT TESTIFY Now that Vuitton has agreed that J. Andrew Coombs, Vuitton's lead counsel, will not testify

at trial, the Court should exclude all of the letters sent by Coombs in this case because they are inadmissible. This is because the admission of evidence at trial requires authentication under Fed. R. Evid. 901. As the party offering the evidence, Vuitton has the burden of satisfying this

authentication requirement. But Vuitton cannot satisfy this burden without Coombs' testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) requires that Vuitton lay the proper foundation for Coombs' letters before such letters are admitted. ("The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.") Vuitton attempts to duck the requirement of Rule 901(a) by claiming that Coombs' testimony is not required because "what is relevant is the notice those letters provided." Vuitton has its logic in reverse. In order for these letters to demonstrate notice, they must first be admitted. In order for

these letters to be admitted, Vuitton must lay the proper foundation for them. Because Coombs, the only person who can lay the proper foundation, will not testify, any letters that he sent are entirely inadmissible and therefore cannot be used to prove anything. Vuitton's argument that Defendants are somehow estopped from requesting the exclusion of these letters is irrelevant. The identity of the recipient does not change Vuitton's requirements under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Simply put, Vuitton cannot lay a proper foundation for Coombs' letters without his testimony. /// /// ///

164431.2-10562-002-3/16/2009

1

DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #1 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF COOMBS ­ C 07-3952 JW

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

II.

CONCLUSION Defendants move the Court to exclude the letters sent by J. Andrew Coombs based on

Vuitton's inability to lay the proper foundation for these letters as required by Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).

Dated: March 16, 2009

GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES

By:

/s/James A. Lowe David A. Gauntlett James A. Lowe Brian S. Edwards Christopher Lai

Attorneys for Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc., and Steve Chen

164431.2-10562-002-3/16/2009

2

DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #1 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF COOMBS ­ C 07-3952 JW