Fairey et al v. The Associated Press

Filing 242

JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT /Proposed Joint Pretrial Order. Document filed by One 3 Two, Inc., The Associated Press. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A - Part 2, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G)(Cendali, Dale)

Fairey et al v. The Associated Press

Doc. 242 Att. 7

THE AP'S DESIGNATION OF PRIOR DEPOSITION TESTIMONY Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the AP designates the following witnesses whose testimony the AP expects to present by deposition and the pertinent parts of each witness deposition. I. Deposition of Amanda Fairey (September 18, 2009) 6:11 - 24 11:5 - 14 16:6 - 17 17:4 - 22 19:6 - 20:8 93:4 - 18 95:9 - 19 135:24 - 142:16 148:23 - 151:9 152:3 - 7 II. Deposition of Amanda Fairey (March 28, 2010) 463:18 - 464:18 III. Deposition of Amanda Fairey (July 27, 2010) 560:17 - 561:3 567:5 - 573:12 588:13 - 593:13 599:13 - 19 601:24 - 606:7 607:10 - 16 610:14 - 611:17 IV. Deposition of Mannie Garcia (March 4, 2010) 12:12 - 13:2 14:11 - 22:2 22:15 - 26:1 26:11 - 41:10 41:19 - 20 41:24 - 46:21 47:7 - 15 47:23 - 50:1 114:15 - 22

Dockets.Justia.com

V. Deposition of Mannie Garcia (March 5, 2010) 24:17 - 25:3 36:2 - 39:5 52:8 - 22 160:19 - 161:5 162:11 - 163:19 166:2 - 167:9 172:9 - 174:12 176:21 - 177:21 211:3 - 212:7 225:2 - 227:5 241:9 - 242:5 348:4 - 352:6 VI. Deposition of Brad Grossman (August 24, 2010) 7:14 - 8:9 9:15 - 10:13 12:17 - 13:23 14:25 - 16:14 21:16 - 23:16 50:2 - 12 54:16 - 55:10 151:8 - 153:18 205:8 - 206:4 212:25 - 213:5 234:10 - 239:24 VII. Deposition of Olivia Perches (September 22, 2009)

6:16 - 20 17:25 - 18:13 22:2 - 9 37:8 - 19 46:4 - 7 69:18 - 70:6 75:20 - 76:16 VIII. Deposition of Olivia Perches (September 23, 2009) 454:12 - 458:19 514:24 - 518:13

2

THE AP'S OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS TO DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS OF OBEY CLOTHING Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the AP submits its Objections and Counter-designations to the Deposition Designations of Obey Clothing. In addition to the objections and counter-designations set forth below, the AP will bring to the pre-trial conference as a courtesy to the Court a bound set of appendices with the relevant portions of the deposition testimony designated by Obey Clothing with the AP's objections set out in the margin.

I.

James Danziger ­ July 7, 2009 (see Appendix A to the AP's courtesy copy to the Court) The AP objects to Obey Clothing's deposition designations on hearsay grounds because Mr. Danziger is available to testify at trial, and because Obey Clothing appears to be offering Mr. Danziger in violation of Rule 26 as an undisclosed expert on photography and licensing who has not submitted an expert report. The AP further objects as follows: Designation Page 22:11-19 Objection Relevance; unfairly prejudicial; foundation; calls for speculation. Pages 22:23-23:7 Relevance; unfairly prejudicial; foundation; calls for speculation. Pages 38:18-39:16 Pages 45:2-46:16 Pages 47:5-48:11 Pages 49:9-50:12 Relevance; hearsay; foundation. Relevance; hearsay. Relevance; hearsay. Relevance; hearsay; calls for speculation; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 50:13-14, 51:4 and 51:6. Page 52:18-21 Page 52:24-53:17 Pages 53:20-54:1 Relevance; hearsay; calls for speculation. Relevance; hearsay; calls for speculation. Relevance; hearsay; calls for speculation; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 54:16-55:1. Pages 55:2-56:24 Relevance; hearsay; foundation; unfairly prejudicial; calls for speculation; improper opinion testimony. 3

Pages 59:19-60:2

Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 60:3-8; irrelevant; foundation; prejudicial, calls for speculation

Pages 60:18-61:7

Relevance; foundation; unfairly prejudicial; calls for speculation.

Page 61:10-11 Pages 61:20-66:12 Pages 66:23-68:1 Pages 68:10-12 Page 68:16-17

Relevance; foundation; calls for speculation. Relevance. Relevance; foundation; calls for speculation. Relevance; foundation; calls for speculation. Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 68:18-20 and 68:23-69:10; relevance; foundation; calls for speculation.

Pages 71:3-72:11 Page 72:14-19 Page 73:11-17

Relevance. Relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 73:18-22; relevance.

Pages 73:23-74:12

Relevance; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 73:18-22 and 80:3-14.

Page 74:19-23 Pages 75:1-76:1 Pages 77:7-78:4

Relevance. Relevance. Relevance; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of page 80:3-14.

Page 82:7-10

Relevance; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 82:13 and 82:20-22; irrelevant; calls for speculation.

Page 83:1-3

Relevance; lack of personal knowledge; unfairly prejudicial; calls for speculation.

Page 83:7

Relevance; lack of personal knowledge; unfairly prejudicial; calls for speculation.

Pages 96:4-99:1

Relevance; incomplete under Rule 106; would also

4

require designation of page 104:12-19. Page 101:8-20 Relevance.

Subject to its objections, the AP submits the following counter-designations: 1. Page 27:10-16 2. Page 27:23-28:9 3. Page 33:17-23 4. Page 50:13-14 5. Page 51:4 6. Page 51:6 7. Pages 54:16-55:1 8. Page 60:3-8 9. Page 68:18-20 10. Pages 68:23-69:10 11. Page 73:18-22 12. Page 80:3-14 13. Pages 81:14-82:6 14. Page 82:13 15. Page 82:20-22 16. Page 85:6-20 17. Page 86:13-89:14 18. Page 104:12-19 II. Farah DeGrave ­ March 23, 2010 (see Appendix B to the AP's courtesy copy to the Court) The AP objects to Obey Clothing's deposition designations on hearsay grounds because Ms. DeGrave is available to testify at trial. The AP further objects as follows:

Designation Pages 134:23­135:12

Objection Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 134:5­134:22; incomplete hypothetical; calls for speculation. 5

Pages 179:25­180:24 Pages 202:5­202:13

Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 180:25­181:9; foundation. None.

Subject to its objections, the AP submits the following counter-designations: 1. Pages 61:18­63:12 2. Pages 67:11­67:22 3. Pages 198:2­200:14

III.

Mannie Garcia Vol. 1 ­ March 4, 2010 The AP does not object to the designated testimony.

IV.

Mannie Garcia Vol. 2 ­ March 5, 2010 (see Appendix C to the AP's courtesy copy to the Court) The AP objects as follows: 1. The designated testimony constitutes inadmissible hearsay within hearsay as Mr. Garcia was asked about prior, out of court statements, that he made to the media, and Obey Clothing is offering such statements for the truth of the matter asserted.

Designation Pages 64:4-65:18 Pages 68:16-69:8 Pages 70:13-16

Objection Hearsay; form; foundation. Hearsay; form; foundation. Hearsay; form; foundation; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 69:10-70:12; misleading as the testimony pertains to earlier statements that are not designated and are not relevant; vague and ambiguous. Hearsay; form; foundation. Hearsay; form; foundation; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 76:3-76:20.

Pages 70:17-71:21 Pages 76:21-78:4

2. The designated testimony is irrelevant because it relates to claims or defenses that are no longer in the case, such as Mannie Garcia's work-for-hire claim that he was the owner of the copyright in the Obama Photo, Mr. Garcia's licensing deal 6

with a New York art gallery, and Mr. Garcia's claims as to Mr. Fairey and his companies. Such testimony is also reasonably likely to confuse the jury. Designation Pages 80:8-14 Objection Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's work for hire claim is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's work for hire claim is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's as to Mr. Fairey is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's claims is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's claims is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case; unfairly prejudicial; testimony is likely to confuse the jury. Not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case; testimony is likely to confuse the jury. Not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial. Incomplete under Rule 106; vague and ambiguous; not relevant to the remaining issues in the case as the designated testimony pertains to Mr. Garcia's claims as to Mr. Fairey; unfairly prejudicial; testimony is likely to confuse the jury. Incomplete under Rule 106; vague and ambiguous; not relevant to remaining issues in the case. Not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case. 7

Pages 80:19-81:4

Pages 81:9-15

Pages 86:16-17

Pages 87:7-12

Pages 277:6-278:16

Pages 279:5-9

Pages 284:6-19

Pages 300:1-21

Pages 302:16-22 Pages 312:21-316:6

Pages 320:1-321:6

Pages 321:15-322:4

Not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case. Not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case.

3. The designated testimony is not relevant to the extent it relates to Mr. Garcia's membership in the National Press Photographer's Association and the guidelines propounded by that organization.

Designation Pages 117:22-118:22

Objection Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 115:6-116:20; foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 119:1-2; foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; foundation; relevance; the same questions were also previously asked and answered in portions designated by Obey Clothing and are therefore unduly cumulative.

Pages 119:3-22 Pages 121:21-122:3 Pages 122:10-12 Pages 188:8-16

4. The designated testimony is misleading and vague and ambiguous because Obey Clothing failed to designate the portion of the testimony laying a proper foundation, even designating answers without the accompanying questions. Also, the designated testimony is not relevant to any of the remaining issues in the case.

Designation Pages 165:2-11

Objection Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading and irrelevant as the testimony pertains to the dimensions and size of the room in which the deposition was held; vague and ambiguous. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading and irrelevant as it is unclear what room the designated testimony pertains to; vague and ambiguous. Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require 8

Pages 169:1-4

Pages 221:6-7; 221:22-222:1

Pages 223:13-17

Pages 224:6-12

Pages 224:15-225:1

Pages 232:6-8

Pages 238:16-239:5

Pages 285:6-13

Pages 325:10-16 Pages 337:7-17

Pages 338:12-339:20

Pages 340:19-341:22

Pages 346:17-347:8

designation of pages 221:10-11; misleading as the witness states that he thought he was answering a different question; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what elements are being referred to; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what elements are being referred to; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what elements are being referred to; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what the witness is being asked to look at; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what the witness is referring to; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what events are being discussed; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misstates prior testimony; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misstates prior testimony; asked and answered and duplicates earlier testimony that was designated by Obey Clothing; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misstates prior testimony; asked and answered and duplicates earlier testimony that was designated by Obey Clothing; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; vague and ambiguous as testimony is incomplete and not clear what Mr. Garcia is referring to; incomplete hypothetical and asks witness to speculate; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misstates prior testimony; vague and ambiguous as it asks the witness to assume and does not identify what the assumption is; incomplete hypothetical; form and foundation; relevance.

5. The designated testimony is misleading and not relevant as it pertains to Mr. Garcia making photographs that are not at issue in this case. The testimony is unclear, and

9

would likely confuse the jurors who may reasonably not understand which photograph Mr. Garcia is testifying about.

Designation Pages 169:1-4

Objection Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading and irrelevant as it is unclear what room the designated testimony pertains to; vague and ambiguous. Misleading and irrelevant as the testimony pertains to photographs made by Mr. Garcia that are not at issue. The testimony would also be likely to confuse or mislead the jury. Misleading and irrelevant as the testimony pertains to photographs made by Mr. Garcia that are not at issue. The testimony would also be likely to confuse or mislead the jury.

Pages 207:19-209:6

Pages 215:18-218:2

Subject to its objections, the AP submits the following counter-designations: 1. Pages 138:16-143:2 2. Pages 149:10-150-16 3. Pages 172:6-8 4. Pages 181:22-182:6 5. Pages 183:6-8 6. Pages 218:21-219:3 7. Pages 219:8-9 8. Pages 222:9-17 9. Pages 230:12-14 10. Pages 232:22-233:3 11. Pages 233:14-234:21 12. Pages 239:11-14 13. Pages 239:22-240-13 14. Pages 259:15-19 15. Pages 329:10-12 16. Pages 347:10-19

10

V. Gregory Payan ­ April 6, 2010 (see Appendix D to the AP's courtesy copy to the Court) The AP objects to Obey Clothing's deposition designations on hearsay grounds because Mr. Payan is available to testify at trial. The AP further objects as follows: Designation Pages 13:3­13:9 Pages 14:5­14:22 Objection Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 13:10­14:4; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 13:10­14:4; relevance.

Subject to its objections, the AP submits the following counter-designations: 1. Pages 13:10­14:4 2. Pages 21:23­22:15 3. Pages 70:14­70:22

11

THE AP'S OBJECTIONS A TO OBEY CLOTHING'S COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS TO THE AP'S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the AP submits its Objections to Obey Clothing's Counter-designations to the AP's deposition designations. The AP objects to Obey Clothing's counter-designations to the extent that they duplicate Obey Clothing's own designations. In particular, Obey Clothing counter-designations of Mr. Garcia's deposition are substantially the same as its original designations. The counterdesignations are therefore unduly cumulative and duplicative. The AP requests that the Court rule that Obey Clothing's unobjectionable designations be played for the jury only once. The AP also objects to the extent that the counter designations are outside the scope of proper crossexamination testimony to the AP's designations. I. Amanda Fairey Vol. 1 -- September 18, 2009 (see Appendix E to the AP's courtesy copy to the Court)) The AP objects as follows: Designation Pages 151:10-152 Objection Relevance; lack of foundation; incomplete under Rule 601.

II.

Amanda Fairey Vol. 3 -- July 27, 2010 (see Appendix F to the AP's courtesy copy to the Court) The AP objects as follows: Designation Pages 790:22-794:17 Objection Relevance; outside the scope of proper crossexamination; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 790:11-790:22. Relevance; lack of foundation.

Pages 794:3-794:17

III.

Brad Grossman ­ August 24, 2009 (see Appendix G to the AP's courtesy copy to the Court) The AP objects as follows: Designation Pages 23:22-25:5 Pages 28:21-30:16 Objection Relevance; unfairly prejudicial; outside the scope of proper cross-examination. Relevance; unfairly prejudicial; outside the scope of proper cross-examination. 12

Pages 150:25-151:6 Pages 154:3-154:11 Pages 198:4-200:16

Lack of foundation. Hearsay; irrelevant; unfairly prejudicial. Relevance as to Mr. Grossman's opinion or what he thought; lack of foundation; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 200:17201:5, 201:18-204:8. Relevance as to Mr. Grossman's opinion or what he thought; lack of foundation; unfairly prejudicial. Relevance as to Mr. Grossman's opinion or what he thought; lack of foundation; unfairly prejudicial. Relevance as to Mr. Grossman's opinion or what he thought; lack of foundation; unfairly prejudicial. Relevance as to Mr. Grossman's opinion or what he thought; lack of foundation; unfairly prejudicial.

Pages 204:9-205:7 Pages 211:21-212:24 Pages 213:6-213:24 Pages 231:21-233:3

IV.

Mannie Garcia Vol. 1 ­ March 4, 2010 (see Appendix H to the AP's courtesy copy to the Court) The AP objects as follows: Designation Page 26, Lines 2 - 10 Objection Outside the scope of proper cross-examination.

V.

Mannie Garcia Vol. 2 ­ March 5, 2010 (see Appendix I to the AP's courtesy copy to the Court) The AP objects as follows: Designation Page 19, Lines 2 - 13 Objection Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; relevance as it pertains to Mr. Garcia's claims that are no longer at issue in the case. Misstates actual portion counter-designated; outside scope of proper cross-examination; hearsay; form; foundation. Hearsay; form; foundation; incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 69:10-70:12; misleading as the testimony pertains to earlier statements that are not designated and are not relevant; vague and ambiguous. Hearsay; form; foundation; incomplete under 13

Page 68, Line 16 - Page 69, Line 9

Page 70, Line 13 - Page 71, Line 21

Page 76, Line 21 - Page 78, Line 4

Page 80, Lines 8 - 14

Page 80, Line 19 - Page 81, Line 4

Page 81, Lines 9 - 15

Page 86, Lines 16 - 17

Page 87, Lines 7 - 12

Page 117, Line 22 - Page 118, Line 22

Page 119, Lines 3 - 22

Page 121, Line 21 - Page 122, Line 3 Page 122, Lines 10 - 12 Page 165, Lines 2 - 9

Page 167, Line 10 - Page 168, Line 4

Page 169, Lines 1 - 4

Page 188, Lines 8 - 16

Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 76:3-76:20. Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's work for hire claim is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's work for hire claim is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's as to Mr. Fairey is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's claims is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Incomplete under Rule 106; testimony regarding Mr. Garcia's claims is not relevant; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial; foundation. Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 115:6-116:20; foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 119:1-2; foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading and irrelevant as the testimony pertains to the dimensions and size of the room in which the deposition was held; vague and ambiguous. Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; objects to the exhibits referenced as not authentic and hearsay. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading and irrelevant as it is unclear what room the designated testimony pertains to; vague and ambiguous. Incomplete under Rule 106; foundation; relevance; the same questions were also previously asked and answered in portions 14

Page 207, Line 19 - Page 209, Line 6

Page 215, Line 18 - Page 218, Line 20

Page 221, Line 22 - Page 222, Line 1

Page 223, Lines 10 - 17

Page 224, Lines 6 - 12

Page 224, Line 15 - Page 225, Line 1

Page 232, Lines 6 - 8

Page 238, Line 16 - Page 239, Line 5

Page 277, Line 6 - Page 278, Line 16

Page 279, Lines 5 - 9

designated by Obey Clothing and are therefore unduly cumulative. Misleading and irrelevant as the testimony pertains to photographs made by Mr. Garcia that are not at issue. The testimony would also be likely to confuse or mislead the jury. Misleading and irrelevant as the testimony pertains to photographs made by Mr. Garcia that are not at issue. The testimony would also be likely to confuse or mislead the jury. Incomplete under Rule 106; would also require designation of pages 221:10-11; misleading as the witness states that he thought he was answering a different question; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what elements are being referred to; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what elements are being referred to; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what elements are being referred to; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what the witness is being asked to look at; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what the witness is referring to; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case; unfairly prejudicial; testimony is likely to confuse the jury. Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case; testimony is likely to confuse the jury.

15

Page 284, Lines 6 - 19

Page 285, Lines 6 - 13

Page 300, Lines 1 - 21

Page 302, Lines 16 - 22

Page 312, Line 21 - Page 316, Line 6

Page 320, Line 1 - Page 321, Line 6

Page 321, Line 15 - Page 322, Line 4

Page 325, Line 10 - Page 326, Line 5

Page 337, Line 7 - Page 338, Line 2

Page 338, Line 8 - Page 339, Line 20

Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case; testimony is likely to confuse the jury; unfairly prejudicial. Incomplete under Rule 106; misleading as it is unclear what events are being discussed; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; incomplete under Rule 106; vague and ambiguous; not relevant to the remaining issues in the case as the designated testimony pertains to Mr. Garcia's claims as to Mr. Fairey; unfairly prejudicial; testimony is likely to confuse the jury. Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; incomplete under Rule 106; vague and ambiguous; not relevant to remaining issues in the case. Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case. Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case. Outside the scope of proper cross-examination; not relevant to any remaining claims or defenses in this lawsuit as Mr. Garcia's efforts to license or exploit the copyright are no longer at issue in the case. Incomplete under Rule 106; misstates prior testimony; vague and ambiguous; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misstates prior testimony; asked and answered and duplicates earlier testimony that was designated by Obey Clothing; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misstates prior testimony; asked and answered and duplicates earlier testimony that was designated by Obey Clothing; form and foundation; relevance. 16

Page 340, Line 19 - Page 341, Line 22

Page 346, Line 17 - Page 347, Line 8

Incomplete under Rule 106; vague and ambiguous as testimony is incomplete and not clear what Mr. Garcia is referring to; incomplete hypothetical and asks witness to speculate; form and foundation; relevance. Incomplete under Rule 106; misstates prior testimony; vague and ambiguous as it asks the witness to assume and does not identify what the assumption is; incomplete hypothetical; form and foundation; relevance.

17