FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al v. AEREOKILLER LLC, et al

Filing 60

RESPONSE re 57 Response to Order of the Court,, EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF JOHN C. ULIN AND JULIE A. SHEPARD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT filed by FILMON X, LLC, FILMON.COM, INC,, FILMON.TV NETWORKS, INC.,, FILMON.TV, INC.. (Baker, Ryan)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_______________________________________
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-cv-00758 (RMC)

FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al.
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
v.

Civil No. 1:13-cv-00758 (RMC)

FILMON X, LLC, et al.
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
_______________________________________
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF JOHN C. ULIN AND
JULIE A. SHEPARD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT
Defendant FilmOn X1 hereby submits these Evidentiary Objections to the Declarations of
John C. Ulin [dkt. 57-1] and Julie A. Shepard [dkt. 57] used in support of Plaintiffs’ Response to
the Order to Show Cause re Contempt. The Ulin and Shepard declarations purport to attach
unauthenticated highly objectionable internet articles published on MultiChannel.com and
Variety.com. This Court should disregard the hearsay statements contained in those articles.
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION
OF JULIE SHEPARD
Ulin Decl. ¶ 2 & Exhibit 1 thereto
FilmOn X’s Objections
--Hearsay. Lack of foundation. Irrelevance
The Variety.com internet article attached as Exhibit 1 to the Ulin declaration constitutes
inadmissible hearsay and the declarant lacks foundation and personal knowledge about the

1

 “FilmOn X” or “Defendants” refers collectively herein to defendants FilmOn X LLC, FilmOn.TV Networks, Inc.,
FilmOn.TV, Inc. and FilmOn.com, Inc. 

1
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

statements contained therein. “[C]ourts within this Circuit have consistently barred newspaper
articles from introduction as evidence due to the fact that they constitute inadmissible
hearsay.” Atkins v. Fischer, 232 F.R.D. 116, 132 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing to Metro. Council of
NAACP Branches v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 46 F.3d 1154, 1165 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“We
seriously question whether a New York Times article is admissible evidence of the truthfulness
of its contents.”); United States v. Pollard, 161 F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C.2001) (barring admission
of newspaper articles as insufficient proof of a party's claim). Moreover, the article is
incomplete, mischaracterizes the facts, and is irrelevant.

Shepard Decl. ¶ 2 & Exhibit 1 thereto
FilmOn X’s Objections
--Hearsay. Lack of foundation. Irrelevance
The MultiChannel.com internet article attached as Exhibit 1 to the Shepard declaration
constitutes inadmissible hearsay and the declarant lacks foundation and personal knowledge
about the statements contained therein. “[C]ourts within this Circuit have consistently barred
newspaper articles from introduction as evidence due to the fact that they constitute inadmissible
hearsay.” Atkins v. Fischer, 232 F.R.D. 116, 132 (D.D.C. 2005); see also United States v.
Pollard, 161 F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C.2001) (barring admission of newspaper articles as
insufficient proof of a party's claim). Moreover, the article is incomplete, mischaracterizes the
facts, and is irrelevant.

Shepard Decl. ¶ 2
--Hearsay. Lack of foundation. Lack of personal knowledge. Irrelevance
Ms. Shepard’s mischaracterization of the MultiChannel.com internet article as reporting
that “Alki David, FilmOn’s founder, intended to ‘defy’ the preliminary injunction” lacks
foundation and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. The article itself does not attribute the word

2
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

“defy” to Mr. David. Ms. Shepard (an attorney in this case) is not the author of this article and
does not have any personal knowledge about Mr. David’s out-of-court statements.

October 25, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan G. Baker
Ryan G. Baker
BAKER MARQUART LLP
10990 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90024
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (facsimile)
Bar No.: 200344
Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim
Plaintiffs FilmOn X, LLC, FilmOn.TV, Inc.,
FilmOn.TV Networks, Inc., and FilmOn.com, Inc.

3
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS