Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al

Filing 360

SUPPLEMENTARY Counter-Designation of Depositions by Defendants/Counter Claimants Vonage America, Inc., Vonage Holdings Corp. (Campbell, Terrence) (Document title modified on 9/7/2007. (mg))

Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al

Doc. 360

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS __________________________________________ ) SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 05-2433-JWL v. ) ) VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP. AND ) VONAGE AMERICA, INC., ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) VONAGE'S SUPPLEMENTARY COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and 32, Defendants Vonage Holdings Corp. and Vonage America, Inc. (collectively "Vonage"), and the Court's instructions regarding supplemental objections and counter-designations by Vonage on Wednesday, August 29, 2007, respectfully submit the following objections and counter-designations to Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company L.P.'s designation of deposition testimony. 1. Louis Holder (June 12, 2007) Vonage objects to 13:10 ­ 13:23; 25:18 ­ 25:22; 26:4 ­ 26:25; 27:4 ­ 27:11; 26:4 ­ 26:25; 27:4 ­ 27:11; 30:24 ­ 31:2; 32:2 ­ 32:5; 53:24 ­ 53:25; 54:11 ­ 54:14 as irrelevant and objectionable under Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") 401-403, lacking foundation, and hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage objects to 47:12 ­ 50:22 and 52:23 ­ 53:5; 53:24 ­ 53:25 as a non-testimonial attorney exchange, improper questioning by Sprint attorney, and irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. -1-

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 2 of 12

Vonage objects to 53:15 ­ 53:23 and 56:14 ­ 56:22 based on lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602). Vonage objects to 56:25 ­ 57:3; 60:2 ­ 60:5; 69:22 ­ 70:7; 71:10 ­ 71:20; 72:12 ­ 72:19; 73:3 ­ 73:6; 73:8; 74:15 ­ 74:12; 74:16 ­ 74:17; 76:5 ­ 76:9; 76:12 ­ 76:15; 78:9 ­ 78:13; 78:23 - 79:7; 79:19 ­ 79:23; 80:23 ­ 81:4; 82:8 ­ 82:11; 82:20 ­ 82:24; 83:6; 84:3 ­ 84:24; 92:5 ­ 92:13; 92:14-19; 94:9-17; 95:22 - 99:2; 99:9 - 100:6; 107:17 - 107:16; 115:18 - 116:8; 116:1720; 115:1-17 as objectionable under FRE 403, lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602), lack of foundation, and hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage also objects to 56:25 - 57:3 as misconstruing witness testimony. Vonage also objects to 107:17 - 107:16 due to failure to authenticate and as speculation. Vonage also objects to 115:1-17 as improper questioning, seeking privileged communications, and a non-testimonial exchange between attorneys. Counter-designations: 19:22 - 20:5 24:5-9 25:23-26:3 27:1-3 36:1-6 36:12-22 85:4-5 85:7-10 85:12-21 86:18-88:5 92:17-19 93:1-5, 93:10-13 94:9-14 94:22-97:15 97:22-98:6 98:10-19 99:23 -100:6 102:3-4, 102:9-15, 102:18-103:2 104:22-105:3 106:10-25 107:22-108:1 109:24-110:7 113:1-7 -2-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 3 of 12

115:18-21, 118:24-116:3 2. John Rego (November 16, 2006) Vonage objects to all designation on this transcript as relating to a prior case and as statements that are therefore out of context and thereby excludable under FRE 401-403. But Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. Vonage objects to 100:16 ­ 102:11; 104:2 - 104:20; 108:3-8; 160:16 - 163:16; 166:12 170:18; 254:3 ­ 254:20; 255:4 ­ 255:11; and 255:17 - 256:8 as irrelevant and objectionable under FRE 401-403. Vonage objects to 118:11-13 and 119:1-4 as speculation, (witness stated he doesn't know), and clearly lacks personal knowledge (FRE 602). Vonage objects to 149:13 ­ 149:16 as vague and ambiguous, confusing and misleading to jury (FRE 403). It would be a waste of time to include the entire portions of the transcript representing "what we have been talking about all morning" as required for completeness of context (FRE 106), so this question and answer should be excluded. Vonage objects to 205:18 - 207:21; 208:4 - 209:7; 242:3 ­ 242:20 as irrelevant and confusing and a waste of time (FRE 401-403), and due to lack of foundation. Vonage objects to 209:15 - 210:1 and 210:6 - 211:4 as irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing and a waste of time (FRE 401-403), lack of foundation. Counter-designations 42:16 - 43:2 43:9 ­ 43:18 47:2 ­ 47:13 74:13 ­ 75:10 75:14 ­ 77:11 77:14 ­ 77:17 78:9 ­ 78:12 79:12 ­ 79:15 80:14 ­ 80:19 85:4 ­ 88:20 -3-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 4 of 12

89:6 ­ 89:21 107:18 ­ 108:2 112:4 ­ 112:7 113:18 ­ 114:19 118:18 ­ 118:20 121:1 ­ 121:8 122:7 ­ 122:10 124:7 ­ 125:13 126:16 ­ 127:17 127:21 ­ 128:3 129:1 ­ 129:19 130:2 ­ 130:9 130:15 ­ 130:18 133:4 ­ 133:8 134:18 ­ 134:20 135:2 ­ 135:4 138:10 ­ 140:4 3. David Wu (March 20, 2007) Vonage objects to 88:18 ­ 68:23 and 69:7 ­ 69:16 as irrelevant and objectionable under FRE 401-403. Vonage objects to Sprint designations between 71:17 and 85:17 as irrelevant and objectionable under FRE 401-403. However, Vonage counter-designates as required under FRE 106. Vonage objects to 104:24 ­ 105:5; 105:23; 106:11; 106:24 as hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage objects to 131:12 ­ 131:17 and 133:1 ­ 133:16; 149:13 ­ 150:6; 147:4 ­ 147:6; 147:25 ­ 148:3; 165:6 - 165:9; 169:19 ­ 170:24; 171:19 ­ 172:13 for failure to authenticate (FRE 901), as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403, and for lack of foundation. Counter-designations: 69:6 ­ 73:22 75:12 ­ 83:1 84:18 ­ 86:22 149:13 ­ 151:7 165:6 ­ 165:25 168:16 ­ 172:13

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 5 of 12

4.

Scott Bradner (Verizon v. Vonage) (Jan. 13, 2007) Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon

v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. Vonage objects to 62:15 ­ 62:21; 211:14 - 211:15; 239:20 ­ 239:21; 263:6 ­ 266:6; 334:18 ­ 337:4; and 369:4 ­ 369:18 as irrelevant and objectionable under FRE 401-403; lacking foundation; improper expert witness testimony as not applied to the facts in our case (FRE 701); and hearsay (FRE 801). 5. Jeffrey Citron (Verizon v. Vonage) (Dec. 22, 2006) Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. Vonage objects to 25:13 ­ 29:22 as irrelevant and objectionable under FRE 401-403, hearsay (FRE 801), not authenticated, lacking foundation. Vonage objects to 33:9 ­ 34:9 and 35:9 ­ 36:16 as irrelevant and waste of time (FRE 401-403) and hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage objects to 39:6 ­ 39:21 as misleading and prejudicial (FRE 403), hearsay (FRE 801), and lacking of foundation. Vonage objects to 45:7 ­ 45:18; 45:19 ­ 46:10; and 46:16 ­ 50:13; 58:12 ­ 60:4; 64:4 ­ 64:7; as asked and answered, cumulative, irrelevant and objectionable under FRE 401- 403. Vonage objects to 59:19 ­ 57:7 as a non-testimonial exchange and waste of time (FRE 403). Vonage objects to 57:8 ­ 57:21 as hearsay (FRE 801) and witness lacks personal knowledge (FRE 602). Vonage objects to 80:16 ­ 81:7; 84:21 ­ 85:18; 87:17 ­ 89:21; 89:19 -92:22; 93:6 ­ 94:6; 96:16 -99: 16; 103:10 ­ 105:2; 106:17 ­ 107:1; 114:7 ­ 114:18; 117:1 ­ 117:6; 119:3 ­ 120:13; 121:4 ­ 122:12; 124:13 ­ 128:1; and 168:4 ­ 171:2 for failure to authenticate, as asked and -5-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 6 of 12

answered, cumulative evidence, irrelevant and objectionable (FRE 401-403); lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602); and hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage object to 168:16 ­ 171:2 and all Sprint designations thereafter as excluded by previous ruling in this case regarding Mr. Citron's background. Irrelevant and objectionable under FRE 401-403. Counter-designations: 52:21 ­ 55:6 6. Glenn Eisen (Verizon v. Vonage) (Oct. 27, 2006) Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. Vonage objects to 84:1 ­ 86:20; 122:5 - 123:22; 133:6-135:8; 137:15 - 138:4; 139:16140:10; 156:1 - 158:7 as speculative and witness lacks personal knowledge (FRE 602) and irrelevant and waste of time (FRE 401-403). Vonage objects to 119:10 - 121:6 as prejudicial references to the Verizon case, cumulative and waste of time (FRE 403) and hearsay (FRE 801). Counter-designations: 16:22 ­ 20:5 92:12-22 94:19-22 95:16-22 97:3-16 98:6-99:12 101:5-103:3 103:9-104:11 107:18-20 108:3-8 108:17-110:11 112:19-113:5 121:8-122:4 126:22 ­ 129:21 137:5-9 -6-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 7 of 12

142:17-144:16 172:1-176:3 181:1-191:10 192:18194:21 195:11198:13 200:12-202:3 7. John Jarosz Trial Testimony Transcript (Verizon v. Vonage) (Mar. 5, 2007) Vonage objects to all designations to this transcript as improper expert testimony relating to facts in the Verizon v. Vonage case, not the facts and case at hand, pursuant to FRE 701. Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. Vonage objects to 1347:11-13, 1387:19-21 as misleading (FRE 403). Vonage objects to 1388:6-24 as irrelevant and prejudicial (FRE 401-403), and hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage objects to designations 1391:1-11; 1393:4-9; 1394:14-19; 1403:12-17; 1405:1320; 1416:6-15; 1416:20 - 1417:22; 1423:13 - 1424:11; and 1469:24 - 1470:8, as misleading, prejudicial and a waste of time as witness has not analyzed the law or technology at issue in this case (FRE 403); improper expert witness testimony as not applied to the facts in our case (FRE 701); and hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage objects to 1409:12-21 as confusing and cumulative (FRE 403), and hearsay (FRE 801). Counter-designations: 1389:20-25 1390:1-3 1395:16-22 1410:23-25 1411:1-4 1413:15-25 1412:20-22 -7-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 8 of 12

1414:1-4 8. Jose Martinez (Verizon v. Vonage) (Nov. 6, 2006) Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. Vonage objects to 195:17 - 196:19 as irrelevant, misleading to the jury, confusing the issues, and wasting time, as discussion of technology relevant to the Verizon case but irrelevant here (FRE 401-403). Hearsay (FRE 801). 9. Peter Miron (Verizon v. Vonage) (Oct. 20, 2006) Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. Vonage objects to 51:4 - 53:3 as irrelevant and confusing the issues and wasting time (FRE 401-403): as description of technology not related to issues in this case but relating to the Verizon case, and hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage objects to 200:21 ­ 202:8 for witness' lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602); prejudice, cumulative evidence, waste of time, and further misleading as witness was not a 30(b)(6) designee for topic 18 in the current case (FRE 403); and hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage objects to 205:6-10 for witness' lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602), hearsay (FRE 801), and irrelevance, prejudice and waste of time (FRE 401-403), and lack of foundation. 10. Edward Mulligan (Verizon v. Vonage) (Nov. 7, 2006) Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106.

-8-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 9 of 12

Vonage objects to 15:2 ­ 16:15 as irrelevant and a waste of time (FRE 401-403). Vonage objects to 30:20-32:16 for lack of foundation and a waste of time (FRE 403). Vonage objects to 42:16 ­ 43:19 for lack of foundation, witness' lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602), and failure to authenticate document. Counter-designates: 32:17 ­ 33:16 34:19 ­ 36:12 40:2 ­ 40:13 43:20 ­ 44:20 45:11 ­ 15 48:15 -19 49:19 ­ 20 50:7 ­ 19 53:3 ­ 56:14 161:6 -162:14 11. Benedict Occhiogrosso (Verizon v. Vonage) Vonage objects to 138:7 ­ 139:20 as improper expert witness testimony as not based on facts in the case (FRE 701). Further, Vonage objects to these Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. 12. John Rego Deposition I (Verizon v. Vonage) (Nov. 2, 2006) Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. Vonage objects to 26:19 ­ 27:13; 30:19 ­ 32:1; 124:13 ­ 125:2 for witness' lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602) and a waste of time (FRE 403). Vonage objects to 34:8 ­ 38:12 and 40:13 ­ 41:11 as irrelevant and prejudicial and a waste of time. FRE 401 ­ 403.

-9-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 10 of 12

Vonage objects to 44:7 ­ 45:21 as cumulative evidence, a waste of time, and discussion of wireless service offerings is irrelevant and confuses the issues (FRE 401 ­ 403). Further the testimony is incomplete and requires additional reading for fair context, thus Vonage counterdesignates 43:2-4; 43:6-8; 46:10-16 and 44:3-6 under FRE 106. Vonage objects to 50:21 ­ 53:8 due to lack of foundation, witness' lack of personal knowledge and speculation (FRE 602), and its prejudicial nature (FRE 403). Vonage objects to 271:16 ­ 272:19 due to witness' lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602) and hearsay (FRE 801). Vonage objects to 289:1 ­ 289:21 and 301:16 ­ 301:21 due to failure to authenticate document (witness stated "I have not seen this document before"), hearsay (FRE 801), witness' lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602), and a waste of time (FRE 403). Vonage objects to 308:21 ­ 309:5 based on hearsay (FRE 801). 13. John Rego Deposition II (Verizon v. Vonage) (Dec. 13, 2006) Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. Vonage objects to 83:13 ­ 84:2 as irrelevant and a waste of time (FRE 401-403). Vonage objects to 158:1 ­ 159:21 due to lack of foundation and failure to authenticate the document. Vonage objects to 165:1 ­ 165:22 as irrelevant and prejudicial, confuses the issues, and waste of time, as Vonage has no wireless/mobile offering (FRE 401-403). Counter-Designation: 150:1 ­ 150:6

- 10 -

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 11 of 12

14.

David Wu Deposition (Verizon v. Vonage) (Dec. 14, 2006) Vonage objects to all Sprint designations of witness testimony arising from the Verizon

v. Vonage matter as irrelevant and objectionable pursuant to FRE 401-403. However, Vonage makes counter-designations as required by FRE 106. Vonage objects to 171:6 ­ 17 and 172:6 ­ 22, and 173:3 - 7 as inadmissible because the designation is non-testimonial, irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing the issues, and wasting time (FRE 401 ­ 403). Further, the witness lacks personal knowledge (FRE 602).

September 6, 2007

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Terrance J. Campbell Terrence J. Campbell ­ 18377 Catherine C. Theisen ­ 22360 BARBER EMERSON, L.C. 1211 Massachusetts Street P.O. Box 667 Lawrence, KS 66044 [phone] [phone] Facsimile [e-mail] [e-mail] /s/ Barry Golob______________ Patrick D. McPherson Barry Golob Donald R. McPhail Duane Morris LLP 1667 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1608 202-776-7800 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Vonage Holdings Corp. and Vonage America, Inc.

- 11 -

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 360

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on September 6, 2007, that a copy of Defendants Vonage's Supplementary Counter-Designations to Plaintiff's Designation of Deposition Testimony was filed and served via the Court's electronic filing system: /s/ Terrence J. Campbell Attorney for Defendants

12