Vanginderen v. Cornell University

Filing 18

OBJECTION by Cornell University re 12 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (Deixler, Bert) (vet, ).

Vanginderen v. Cornell University

Doc. 18

Case 3:07-cv-02045-BTM-JMA

Document 18

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 NELSON E. ROTH, SBN 67350 2 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 3 Garden Avenue 4 Telephone: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Dockets.Justia.com

[e-mail]

300 CCC Building

Ithaca, New York 14853-2601 [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

BERT H. DEIXLER, SBN 70614 [e-mail] CHARLES S. SIMS, New York Attorney Registration No. 1535640 admitted pro hac vice [e-mail] CLIFFORD S. DAVIDSON, SBN 246119 [e-mail] PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] CORNELL UNIVERSITY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 07-CV-2045-BTM (JMA) EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF KEVIN VANGINDEREN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [Per chambers, no oral argument unless requested by the Court] Hearing Date: December 21, 2007 Time: 11:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 15 Action Filed: October 1, 2007

12 Attorneys for Defendant,

16 KEVIN VANGINDEREN,
Plaintiff, v.

19 CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

Case 3:07-cv-02045-BTM-JMA

Document 18

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 2 of 3

1

Defendant Cornell University ("Cornell") respectfully makes the following objections to

2 the Affidavit of Plaintiff Kevin Vanginderen in Support of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and 3 Authorities in Opposition of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint ("Affidavit"). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 802).. 15
Cornell objects on the ground that Plaintiff's Affidavit does not include evidence sufficient Objected to Portion: Objection: INTRODUCTION In his Affidavit offered in support of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff fails to identify, much less authenticate or lay foundation for, any of the exhibits or their contents attached to his Affidavit. These exhibits should not be considered by the Court. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Exhibits attached to the Affidavit.

Lack of authentication (Fed. R. Evid. 901); hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801 and

16 to support a finding that the purported attached exhibits, and the contents thereof, are what they 17 claim to be. Plaintiff's Affidavit does not identify any actual exhibits and provides no foundation 18 for the contents thereof, and none of the purported exhibits is self-authenticating. 19 21
Cornell further objects to the purported exhibits as hearsay, to the extent that Plaintiff

20 relies on them to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein.
Objected to Portion: page 1, paragraph 1, portion: ". . .regarding a publication

22 distributed by Cornell University in 1983, and now for the first time disseminated on the World 23 Wide Web in 2007." 24 25 602). 26 28
8085/21177-001 Current/10430794v

Objection:

Lack of foundation; lack of personal knowledge, speculation (Fed. R. Evid.

Cornell objects to this portion of the Affidavit on the ground that such portion lacks

27 foundation and consists of opinion, speculation and argument. Plaintiff lays no foundation for his
1 DEFENDANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 07cv2045

Case 3:07-cv-02045-BTM-JMA

Document 18

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 claims that (1) the "publication" was disseminated in 2007 "for the first time"; or (2) that the 2 "publication" on the World Wide Web was disseminated in 2007. 3
Objection to Portion: page 1, paragraph 3, portion: ". . .The causes of action stem from

4 an article published in the Cornell Chronicle by Cornell University (Defendant) regarding a single 5 specific incident: an arrest and a single charge brought against myself in March of 1983." 6 8
Objection: Best evidence rule (Fed. R. Evid. 1002 and 1003); lack of foundation (Fed.

7 R. Evid. 602).
Cornell objects to this portion of the Affidavit on the ground that this portion of the

9 Affidavit violates the best evidence rule. The Chronicle article itself is the best evidence of the 10 contents of the Chronicle article. 11
Cornell further objects on the ground that Plaintiff has not establish the foundation of his

12 assertion that the Chronicle publication was based on "a single specific incident," and that the 13 assertion is argumentative. 14 16 17 602). 18 20 21 DATED: December 14, 2007 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8085/21177-001 Current/10430794v

Objection to Portion:

page 2, paragraph 7 in its entirety: "The Defendant has never

15 received an Order to Unseal Records at any court to date."
Objection: Lack of foundation; lack of personal knowledge; speculation (Fed. R. Evid.

Plaintiff has not established that he has personal knowledge of whether Cornell had

19 received an unsealing order before November 20, 2007.

NELSON E. ROTH CORNELL UNIVERSITY BERT H. DEIXLER CHARLES S. SIMS CLIFFORD S. DAVIDSON PROSKAUER ROSE LLP /s Bert H. Deixler Bert H. Deixler Attorneys for Defendant, CORNELL UNIVERSITY

2 DEFENDANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

07cv2045