Netquote Inc. v. Byrd

Filing 223

Netquote Inc. v. Byrd

Doc. 223

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00630-DME-MEH NETQUOTE INC, a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. BRANDON BYRD, an internet user making use of the IP Addresses 64.136.27.226 and 64.136.26.227, and MOSTCHOICE.COM, Inc., a Georgia corporation Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED EXHIBITS ______________________________________________________________________________ COMES NOW, Defendants and file this, its Objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Exhibits as follows: Defendants reserve the right to object to all unstipulated documents on grounds of authentication and hearsay. Subject to this reservation, Defendants set forth the following objections set forth by number corresponding with the exhibit stickers contained on the documents as received.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Reference to fraudulent in the document is argumentative. Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine Cumulative of Exhibit 29. Page 1 of 6

Dockets.Justia.com

9. Fine 10. Fine 11. Fine 12. Fine 13. Fine 14. Fine 15. Fine 16. Fine 17. Fine 18. Fine 19. Fine 20. Fine 21. Fine 22. Fine 23. Fine 24. Fine 25. Fine 26. Fine 27. Fine 28. Fine 29. Fine 30. Fine 31. Fine 32. Fine 33. Fine 34. Fine 35. Fine 36. Fine 37. Fine 38. Is there not a copy that doesn't have the marker redaction? If not, I have no objection. 39. Fine 40. Fine 41. Fine 42. Fine 43. Fine 44. Fine 45. Fine 46. Cumulative of 54 47. Fine 48. Fine 49. Fine 50. Fine 51. Fine Page 2 of 6

52. Fine 53. Fine 54. Fine 55. Fine 56. Fine 57. Fine 58. Fine 59. Fine 60. Fine 61. Fine 62. Fine 63. Fine 64. Reference to fraudulent in the document is argumentative 65. Fine 66. Fine 67. Fine 68. Fine 69. Fine 70. Fine 71. Fine 72. Fine 73. Fine 74. Fine 75. Fine 76. Fine 77. Fine 78. Fine 79. Object. I don't believe this evidence is admissible under 608 or 609. I haven't researched this issue but I believe it would also be inadmissible on hearsay grounds. 80. Fine 81. Fine 82. Fine 83. Fine 84. Fine 85. Fine 86. Fine 87. I suppose this could be admissible for impeachment possibly, but am not sure how it would be otherwise admissible. 88. Fine 89. Fine 90. Fine 91. Fine 92. Fine Page 3 of 6

93. Fine 94. Fine 95. I am not sure in what context these are admissible, but I have no objection to the document. 96. This appears to be a copy of 95. 97. Fine 98. Fine 99. Fine 100. I think the top should be redacted that indicates it was printed by your paralegal. 101. I don't think discovery responses are admissible, except to the extent offered as an admission, for impeachment, or if used to refresh recollection. 102. See 101 103. I think the top should be redacted that indicates it was printed by your paralegal. 104. See 101 105. I don't believe the answer is admissible, except to the extent offered as an admission, for impeachment, or if used to refresh recollection. 106. I think the top should be redacted that indicates it was printed by me. 107. Fine 108. See 101 109. See 101 110. Fine 111. Fine 112. See 101 113. I suppose this could be admissible for impeachment possibly, but am not sure how it would be otherwise admissible. 114. Fine 115. See 101 116. Fine 117. Fine 118. Fine 119. I don't have any objection to the content of the document, but am not sure how it is that this document will be sponsored. 120. Fine 121. See 101 122. See 105 123. See 101 124. Fine 125. Fine 126. Fine 127. Fine 128. Fine 129. Fine 130. Fine Page 4 of 6

131. Fine 132. See 101 133. See 101 134. No objection to the document, but I would object to these going back with jury. 135. Fine 136. I suppose this could be admissible for impeachment possibly, but am not sure how it would be otherwise admissible. 137. Fine 138. Fine 139. Fine 140. Fine 141. Fine ( I assume there is a reason the same page is being offered. If not this is the same as 140) 142. Fine 143. See 101 144. Fine 145. Fine 146. Fine 147. Fine 148. Fine 149. Fine 150. Fine 151. Fine 152. Fine 153. Fine 154. Fine 155. Fine 156. Fine 157. I don't recall seeing this document produced before. Did we produce it? It doesn't have a bates stamp from you, and I don't have any record of producing it. 158. Fine 159. Fine 160. Fine 161. I don't recall seeing these documents produced in discovery. However, I have no objection to its use or introduction ­ presuming a witness of course. 162. Fine 163. Fine 164. Fine 165. Fine 166. Fine 167. Fine 168. Fine 169. Fine Page 5 of 6

170. Fine 171. Fine 172. Fine 173. I actually have transcripts of these conversations if you want to use them. 174. Fine 175. I will object to page 3 of 3 under 401 and 403 insofar as it relates to claims for agents for which there is no evidence that Mostchoice's conduct was a substantial factor. 176. I object to the comments as not being a fair summary of the goldmine records, or if offered as Duree's opinion as cumulative to his testimony. 177. I object to this document going out with the jury. I have no objection if offered as a demonstrative aid. This 24th day of April, 2008. s/ Ryan Isenberg Ryan L. Isenberg, Esq. Isenberg & Hewitt, P.C. 7000 Peachtree Dunwoody Road Building 15, Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 770-828-0100 (Fax) Email: [e-mail] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 24th day of April, 2008, I served the foregoing Objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Exhibits, which were previously served on April 15, 2008, by electronic delivery, as an attachment to an email, to the following counsel of record: David W. Stark Heather Carson Perkins Daniel D. Williams Theresa T. Tate FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 3200 Wells Fargo Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 [e-mail] s/ Ryan Isenberg

Page 6 of 6