AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC. et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.

Filing 69

MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support of Public.Resource.Org's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction, #2 Statement of Material Facts, #3 Statement of Disputed Facts, #4 Objections to Evidence, #5 Declaration of Carl Malamud, #6 Declaration of Matthew Becker, #7 Request for Judicial Notice, #8 Text of Proposed Order Granting Public.Resource.Org's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction)(Bridges, Andrew)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
ASSOCIATION, INC., AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., and
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MEASUREMENT IN
EDUCATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG,

Case No. 1:14-CV-00857-TSC-DAR
DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMANT
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.’S
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Action Filed: May 23, 2014

Defendant.

[PUBLIC VERSION]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STANDARDS FOR ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN RULING ON A MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ..............................................................................................................1
A.

Irrelevant Evidence ..................................................................................................1

B.

Lack of Personal Knowledge/Foundation ................................................................2

C.

Improper Lay Testimony on Legal Conclusions or Expert Subject
Matter .......................................................................................................................2

D.

Hearsay ....................................................................................................................4

E.

Unauthenticated Documents ....................................................................................4

F.

Secondary Evidence Rule ........................................................................................5

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.....................................................................................5
II.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF WAYNE J. CAMARA IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND ENTRY OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ..........................................................5

III.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MARIANNE ERNESTO IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND ENTRY OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ........................................................17

IV.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF KURT F. GEISINGER IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND ENTRY OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ........................................................37

V.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ LEAD
COUNSEL JONATHAN HUDIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ENTRY OF A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION ....................................................................................................................52

VI.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF FELICE J. LEVINE IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND ENTRY OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ........................................................68

VII.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DIANNE L. SCHNEIDER IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND ENTRY OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ........................................................86

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
VIII.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF LAURESS L. WISE IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND ENTRY OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ........................................................89

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................101

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES 
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs.,
69 F.3d 337 (9th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................4
Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n,
897 F.2d 999 (9th Cir. 1990) .....................................................................................................2
Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil,
610 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1980) .....................................................................................................4
Block v. City of Los Angeles,
253 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................................1
Boyd v. City of Oakland,
458 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2006) .....................................................................................2
Cambridge Elecs. Corp. v. MGA Elecs., Inc.,
227 F.R.D. 313 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ...............................................................................................4
Evangelista v. Inlandboatmen’s Union of Pac.,
777 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................3
Express, LLC v. Fetish Group, Inc.,
464 F. Supp. 2d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2006) .......................................................................................2
Gable v. Nat’l Broad. Co.,
727 F. Supp. 2d 815 (C.D. Cal. 2010), aff’d, 438 F. App’x 587 (9th Cir. 2011) ......................3
In re Cypress Semiconductor, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
891 F. Supp. 1369 (N.D. Cal. 1995), aff’d, 113 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1997) ..............................4
Int’l Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro,
902 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................4
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
526 U.S. 137 (1999) ...................................................................................................................3
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n,
497 U.S. 871 (1990) ...................................................................................................................3
Orr v. Bank of America,
285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................1, 2, 4

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
Pierce v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals,
CV 09-03837 WHA, 2010 WL 4590930 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2010), aff’d, 470
F. App’x 649 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................2, 3
Riggsbee v. Diversity Servs., Inc.,
637 F.Supp.2d 39, 46 (D.D.C. 2009) .........................................................................................4
Smith v. Hughes Aircraft Co.,
22 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................1
Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc.,
509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................4
U.S. Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.,
296 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1331 (S.D. Ala. 2003)............................................................................3
U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Intern. Const., Inc.,
608 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................1
U.S. v. Davis,
596 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................2
Uche-Uwakwe v. Shinseki,
972 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .....................................................................................1
United States v. 87.98 Acres of Land More or Less in the County of Merced,
530 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................3
United States v. Dibble,
429 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1970) .....................................................................................................5
United States v. Hampton,
718 F.3d 978 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................3
STATUTES
20 U.S.C. § 6301 ............................................................................................................................27
RULES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) ..........................................................................................................29, 70, 98
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)............................................................................................................. passim
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ...............................................................................................................29, 70, 98
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .........................................................................................................................2, 4
iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ....................................................................................................................1, 2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ........................................................................................................................3
Fed. R. Evid. 101 .............................................................................................................................1
Fed. R. Evid. 402 ................................................................................................................... passim
Fed. R. Evid. 403 ................................................................................................................... passim
Fed. R. Evid. 602 ................................................................................................................... passim
Fed. R. Evid. 701 ................................................................................................................... passim
Fed. R. Evid. 702 ................................................................................................................... passim
Fed. R. Evid. 802 ................................................................................................................... passim
Fed. R. Evid. 901 ................................................................................................................... passim
Fed. R. Evid. 1001 ...........................................................................................................................5
Fed. R. Evid. 1002 ................................................................................................................. passim
Fed. R. Evid. 1006 .........................................................................................................................51
Fed. R. Evid. 1101 ...........................................................................................................................1

v

Defendant-Counterclaimant Public.Resource.Org, Inc. hereby submits the following
objections to the Declarations submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
and for Permanent Injunction, ECF No. 60.
STANDARDS FOR ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN
RULING ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
It is fundamental that trial courts “can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a
motion for summary judgment.” Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002)
(emphasis added); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Fed. R. Evid. 101 (Rules of Evidence apply to
all proceedings in the courts of the United States); Fed. R. Evid. 1101 (listing exceptions to
Rule 101). Hearsay, documents that cannot be authenticated, out-of-context excerpts, and
evidence with no foundation will not suffice, and are not to be considered by the court in ruling
on motions for summary judgment or adjudication. See Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d
410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001) (deciding that consideration of a declaration’s facts not based on
personal knowledge was an abuse of discretion because such facts were inadmissible). Much of
the evidence on which Plaintiffs attempt to rely fails to meet the minimum threshold
requirements of admissibility, as set forth below:
A.

Irrelevant Evidence

Irrelevant evidence cannot be considered in summary judgment proceedings. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; see also U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Intern. Const., Inc., 608 F.3d 871, 897
(D.C. Cir. 2010) (“To be admitted, evidence must be relevant.”); Smith v. Hughes Aircraft Co.,
22 F.3d 1432, 1439 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming trial court’s refusal to consider irrelevant evidence
on summary judgment); Uche-Uwakwe v. Shinseki, 972 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
(sustaining objection that statement filed in support of motion for summary judgment was
inadmissible for lack of relevance and foundation).

1

B.

Lack of Personal Knowledge/Foundation

A fact witness may not testify to a matter unless the witness has personal knowledge of
the matter. Fed. R. Evid. 602; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (“declaration used to support or oppose a
motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence,
and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated”); U.S. v.
Davis, 596 F.3d 852, 856 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“The Rules also prohibit a witness from testifying
unless he has personal knowledge of the subject of his testimony.”); Orr, 285 F.3d at 774 & n.9;
Express, LLC v. Fetish Group, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 965, 973 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“Declarations
submitted in conjunction with summary judgment proceedings must . . . be based on personal
knowledge”). Further, “[a] declarant’s mere assertions that he or she possesses personal
knowledge and competency to testify are not sufficient.” Boyd v. City of Oakland, 458 F. Supp.
2d 1015, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2006). A declarant must show personal knowledge and competency
“affirmatively,” under Rule 56, for example, by “the nature of the declarant’s position and nature
of participation in matter.” Id.; see also Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1018
(9th Cir. 1990) (inferring personal knowledge from affiants’ “positions and the nature of their
participation in the matters to which they swore”). The fact that Public Resource does not object
to the witnesses’ testimony that they have personal knowledge of the facts stated in their
declarations and are competent to testify thereto does not in any way signal Public Resource’s
agreement with those assertions. Public Resource merely does not contend those statements are
inadmissible—but they may be wrong.
C.

Improper Lay Testimony on Legal Conclusions or Expert Subject Matter

Legal conclusions are not admissible evidence. See Pierce v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals,
CV 09-03837 WHA, 2010 WL 4590930, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2010), aff’d, 470 F. App’x 649
(9th Cir. 2012) (excluding numerous declarant statements containing inadmissible legal
2

conclusions). The Declarants, without any legal expertise, repeatedly purport to state legal
conclusions and the legal effects of documents supposedly relevant to this dispute. See Fed. R.
Evid. 701; see also Evangelista v. Inlandboatmen’s Union of Pac., 777 F.2d 1390, 1398 n.3 (9th
Cir. 1985) (lay opinion construing contract provisions is inadmissible); Pierce, 2010 WL
4590930, at *8 (declaration that opponent “breached” agreement or “violated” laws is
inadmissible legal conclusion).
Testimony requiring scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge may be given
only by an expert witness with the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,
and opinion testimony is not permitted of a lay person. Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702; see also United
States v. Hampton, 718 F.3d 978, 981–82 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (finding error when district court
allowed FBI agent to testify as a lay witness in the form of an opinion without an applicable
exception in Rule 701); U.S. Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 296 F.
Supp. 2d 1322, 1331 (S.D. Ala. 2003) (unqualified expert opinions inadmissible at summary
judgment). The “proponent of the expert bears the burden of demonstrating that the expert is
qualified.” Gable v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 727 F. Supp. 2d 815, 833 (C.D. Cal. 2010), aff’d, 438 F.
App’x 587 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. 87.98 Acres of Land More or Less in the
County of Merced, 530 F.3d 899, 904-05 (9th Cir. 2008)). See also Kumho Tire Co. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147-48 (1999) (expert must have specialized knowledge).
One type of improper lay opinion is unsupported, speculative, and conclusory statements.
These statements, as well as and claims of opposing parties and their attorneys, are not evidence
and do not raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990) (The purpose of Rule 56(e) is “not to
replace conclusory allegations of the complaint with conclusory allegations of an affidavit.”).

3

Rather, “[w]here the moving party will have the burden of proof at trial, it must affirmatively
demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Int’l
Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 902 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1290-91 (N.D. Cal.
2012) (citing Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007)). Cf. Orr,
285 F.3d at 783 (“To defeat summary judgment, [one opposing summary judgment] must
respond with more than mere hearsay and legal conclusions”); Cambridge Elecs. Corp. v. MGA
Elecs., Inc., 227 F.R.D. 313, 320 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“Conclusory, speculative testimony in
affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary
judgment”).
D.

Hearsay

Generally, “inadmissible hearsay evidence may not be considered on a motion for
summary judgment.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 345 n.4
(9th Cir. 1995); see also Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F.2d 665, 667 (9th Cir.
1980) (“hearsay evidence is inadmissible and may not be considered by this court on review of a
summary judgment”); Riggsbee v. Diversity Servs., Inc., 637 F.Supp.2d 39, 46 (D.D.C. 2009)
(“on summary judgment, statements that are impermissible hearsay or that are not based on
personal knowledge are precluded from consideration by the Court.”); In re Cypress
Semiconductor, Inc. Sec. Litig., 891 F. Supp. 1369, 1374 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (hearsay evidence
cannot be considered in summary judgment proceedings), aff’d, 113 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1997).
E.

Unauthenticated Documents

Authentication or identification is a condition precedent to the admissibility of a
document. Fed. R. Evid. 901. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, evidence in support of
a motion for summary judgment is objectionable if it cannot be presented in a form that would be
admissible. A document cannot be authenticated by one who does not have personal knowledge
4

Dated: January 21, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Andrew P. Bridges
Andrew P. Bridges (admitted)
[e-mail]
Sebastian E. Kaplan (pro hac vice pending)
[e-mail]
Matthew Becker (admitted)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Corynne McSherry (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Mitchell L. Stoltz (D.C. Bar No. 978149)
[e-mail]
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
815 Eddy Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
David Halperin (D.C. Bar No. 426078)
[e-mail]
1530 P Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant-Counterclaimant
Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

SF/5546477.8

102