Vanginderen v. Cornell University et al

Filing 29

OBJECTION by Cornell University, Bert Deixler re 23 Response in Opposition to Motion, to Affidavit of Plaintiff Kevin Vanginderen in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition (Davidson, Clifford) (vet).

Vanginderen v. Cornell University et al

Doc. 29

1 Bert H. Deixler, SBN 70614 3 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 5 Facsimile: 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Telephone:

2 Clifford S. Davidson, SBN 246119 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
[phone] [phone]

e-mail: [e-mail] e-mail: [e-mail]

2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor

6 Attorneys for Defendant,

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

Lary Alan Rappaport, SBN 87614 e-mail: [e-mail] Clifford S. Davidson, SBN 246119 e-mail: [e-mail] PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN VANGINDEREN, Plaintiff, v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, BERT DEIXLER Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 08-cv-00736 BTM(JMA) DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF KEVIN VANGINDEREN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTIONS TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [Per chambers, no oral argument unless requested by the Court] Hearing Date: July 3, 2008 Time: 11:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 15 Action Filed: April 8, 2008

13 BERT DEIXLER

Dockets.Justia.com

1

Defendants Cornell University ("Cornell") and Bert Deixler ("Deixler") respectfully make

2 the following objections to the Affidavit of Plaintiff Kevin Vanginderen in Support of Plaintiff's 3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's 4 Complaint ("Affidavit"). 5 6
INTRODUCTION In his Affidavit, Plaintiff fails to identify, much less authenticate or lay foundation for, any

7 of the exhibits or their contents attached to his Affidavit. These exhibits should not be considered 8 by the Court. The remainder of the Affidavit consists almost entirely of improper legal 9 argumentation, hearsay, irrelevant information, speculation and statements for which Plaintiff 10 lacks foundation. 11 12 13 14 802). 15
Defendants object to the purported exhibits on the ground that the Affidavit does not Objected to Portion: Objection: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS All exhibits attached to the Affidavit.

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

16 include evidence sufficient to support a finding that the purported attached exhibits, and the 17 contents thereof, are what they claim to be. Plaintiff's Affidavit does not identify any actual 18 exhibits and provides no foundation for the contents thereof, and none of the purported exhibits is 19 self-authenticating. 20
Defendants further object to the purported exhibits as hearsay, to the extent that Plaintiff

21 relies on them to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein. The manner in which Plaintiff 22 purports to incorporate the exhibits is unintelligible and therefore Defendants are unable to 23 decipher with certainty what those matters asserted might be and the propositions those exhibits 24 are intended to support. 25
Objection to Portion: page 1, paragraph 3 in its entirety: "The causes of action

26 originate from a libelous article published in the Cornell Chronicle by Cornell University 27 (Defendant) regarding an arrest and a single charge brought against myself in March of 1983, and 28 the subsequent litigation as a result of that article."
8085/21177-001 Current/10430794v

1

08cv736 BTM(JMA)

1

Objection:

Best evidence rule (Fed. R. Evid. 1002 and 1003); lack of foundation (Fed.

2 R. Evid. 602); inadmissible opinion and legal argument (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 703); relevance 3 (Fed. R. Evid. 402). 4 6
Defendants object to this portion on the ground that it violates the best evidence rule. The

5 Chronicle article itself is the best evidence of the contents of the Chronicle article.
Defendants further object to this portion on the ground that Plaintiff has not established the

7 foundation for his assertion that the Chronicle publication was based on "a single specific 8 incident." 9 11
Defendants further object to this portion on the ground that it contains legal argumentation,

10 specifically, that the Chronicle article was "libelous."
Defendants further object to this portion on the ground that it is irrelevant as it does not

12 have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of 13 the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the portion. 14 16 17 19
Objection to Portion: page 2, paragraph 9, portion: "I first learned that a libelous article

15 regarding myself was contained within the March 17, 1983 edition of the Cornell Chronicle . . . ."
Objection: Inadmissible opinion and legal argument (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 703) Defendants object to this portion on the ground that it contains legal argumentation,

18 specifically, that the Chronicle article was "libelous."
Objection to Portion: page 2, paragraph 12 in its entirety: "On October 30, 2007,

20 Defendant Bert Deixler placed a phone call to myself during which he stated that if the underlying 21 original claim was not dismissed forthright, this matter would lead to further publicity of the 22 circumstances regarding the original Private Disclosure of Public Facts claim. He reiterated this 23 not so veiled threat in a written correspondence to myself dated October 31, 2007." 24 25 1003). 26
Defendants object to this portion on the ground that it is irrelevant as it does not have any Objection: Relevance (Fed. R. Evid. 402); best evidence rule (Fed. R. Evid. 1002 and

27 tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the 28 action more probable or less probable than it would be without the portion.
8085/21177-001 Current/10430794v

2

08cv736 BTM(JMA)

1 3

Defendants further object to this portion on the ground that Deixler's letter is the best

2 evidence of the contents of that letter.
Objection to Portion: page 2, paragraph 14 in its entirety: "On October 29, 2007, two

4 days prior to the Defendants' ultimatum to drop the initial case, the Internet profile of myself 5 included no offending statements other than the original libelous account posted by the Cornell 6 library web site." 7 9
Objection: Relevance (Fed. R. Evid. 402); lacks foundation (Fed. R. Evid. 602);

8 inadmissible opinion and legal argument (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 703).
Defendants object to this portion on the grounds that it is conclusory and lacks foundation

10 and consists of subjective belief, opinion, speculation and argument that are irrelevant and 11 inadmissible, and does not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of 12 consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be 13 without the portion. 14 16
Defendants further object to this portion on the ground that it contains legal argumentation,

15 specifically, that the Chronicle article was "libelous."
Objection to Portion: page 3, paragraph 15 in its entirety: "On December 15, 2007, I

17 first learned that the Defendants had obtained from numerous sources the entire formerly sealed 18 record of the incident that was reported in the Cornell Chronicle edition dated March 17, 1983, 19 and then published the entire record upon the Internet, on the Web Site Justia.com." 20 22
Objection: Lacks foundation; lack of personal knowledge; speculation (Fed. R. Evid.

21 602); inadmissible opinion and legal argument (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 703).
Defendants object to this portion on the grounds that it is conclusory and lacks foundation

23 and consists of subjective belief, opinion, speculation and argument that are irrelevant and 24 inadmissible. 25 27 28
8085/21177-001 Current/10430794v

Defendants further object to this portion on the ground that it contains improper legal

26 argumentation, specifically, the assertion that Defendants "published" the entire record.

3

08cv736 BTM(JMA)

1

Objection to Portion:

page 3, paragraph 16 in its entirety: "On December 15, 2007, I

2 first learned of a libelous report regarding myself produced by Barbara Bourne dated March 8, 3 1983, when it was delivered to me by the Defendant Bert Deixler in a court filing." 4 6
Objection: Lacks foundation; lack of personal knowledge; speculation (Fed. R. Evid.

5 602); inadmissible opinion and legal argument (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 703).
Defendants object to this portion on the grounds that it is conclusory and lacks foundation

7 and consists of subjective belief, opinion, speculation and argument that are irrelevant and 8 inadmissible. Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to whether Barbara Bourne produced the 9 alleged report. 10 12
Defendants further object to this portion on the ground that it contains improper legal

11 argumentation, specifically, the assertion that the report was "libelous."
Objection to Portion: page 3, paragraph 18 in its entirety: "On March 24, 2008, it

13 became apparent to me that the Defendant Bert Deixler had thoroughly polluted my Internet 14 profile with references to virtually nothing other than the entire previously sealed record." 15
Objection: Lacks foundation; lack of personal knowledge; speculation (Fed. R. Evid.

16 602); Inadmissible opinion and legal argument (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 703); relevance (Fed. R. 17 Evid. 402). 18
Defendants object to this portion on the grounds that it is conclusory and lacks foundation

19 and consists of subjective belief, opinion, speculation and argument that are irrelevant and 20 inadmissible. 21
Defendants further object to this portion on the ground that it does not have any tendency

22 to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more 23 probable or less probable than it would be without the portion. 24
Objection to Portion: page 3, paragraph 19 in its entirety: "The publication of the

25 entire sealed record of this incident upon the Internet has resulted in great emotional distress to 26 myself and has caused my business to suffer greatly. I have signed ninety percent fewer clients at 27 my business since these disclosure became public in 2007." 28
8085/21177-001 Current/10430794v

4

08cv736 BTM(JMA)

1

Objection:

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

2 602); inadmissible opinion and legal argument (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 703); relevance (Fed. R. 3 Evid. 402). 4
Defendants object to this portion on the grounds that it is conclusory and lacks foundation

5 and consists of subjective belief, opinion, speculation and argument that are irrelevant and 6 inadmissible. Plaintiff presents no evidence linking the alleged "publication" to the suffering of 7 his business. Further, even if true, such information does not have any tendency to make the 8 existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or 9 less probable than it would be without that information. 10
Defendants further object to this portion on the ground that it contains improper legal

11 argumentation, specifically, the assertion that the record was "sealed" and that the records were 12 "published." 13 14 DATED: June 26, 2008 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DATED: June 26, 2008 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8085/21177-001 Current/10430794v

Nelson E. Roth CORNELL UNIVERSITY Bert H. Deixler Clifford S. Davidson PROSKAUER ROSE LLP /s/ -- Clifford S. Davidson Clifford S. Davidson Attorneys for Defendant, CORNELL UNIVERSITY Lary Alan Rappaport Clifford S. Davidson PROSKAUER ROSE LLP /s/ -- Clifford S. Davidson Clifford S. Davidson Attorneys for Defendant, BERT DEIXLER

5

08cv736 BTM(JMA)