White et al v. West Publishing Corporation et al

Filing 67

COUNTER STATEMENT TO 57 Rule 56.1 Statement. Document filed by Edward L. White, P.C.. (Blue, Gregory)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EDWARD L. WHITE, P.C.,

12-CV-1340 (JSR)
ECF CASE

Plaintiff,
- against WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION d/b/a “West”;
and REED ELSEVIER INC., d/b/a LexisNexis,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT REED
ELSEVIER INC.’S RULE 56.1 STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 56.1 of the
Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Plaintiff Edward L. White, P.C.(“Plaintiff”), by its undersigned attorneys,
respectfully submits the following response as to defendant Reed Elsevier Inc.’s
(“Lexis”) Rule 56.1 Statement.
43. Plaintiff has no dispute with the mechanical steps Lexis takes with each
document that it uploads onto its system. Plaintiff objects to the characterization of those
steps as having “enhanced” each document. Plaintiff contends that all the mechanical
steps taken by Lexis only promote Lexis’ goal of making the documents accessible to
subscribers.
85. Plaintiff disputes this paragraph on the grounds that it does not assert any fact
established by the record in the case and constitutes merely expert opinion. Plaintiff
reserves all of its rights to challenge the admissibility and or competence of such expert

opinion. In any event, plaintiff disagrees with the contentions of this paragraph as set
forth in its memoranda of law.
86.

Plaintiff disputes this paragraph on the grounds that it does not assert any

fact established by the record in the case and constitutes merely expert opinion. Plaintiff
reserves all of its rights to challenge the admissibility and or competence of such expert
opinion. In any event, plaintiff disagrees with the contentions of this paragraph as set
forth in its memoranda of law.
87.

Plaintiff disputes this paragraph on the grounds that it does not assert any

fact established by the record in the case and constitutes merely expert opinion. Plaintiff
reserves all of its rights to challenge the admissibility and or competence of such expert
opinion. In any event, plaintiff disagrees with the contentions of this paragraph as set
forth in its memoranda of law.
89.

Plaintiff agrees that there is a market for its Briefs, but disputes that Lexis

created a market where one would not otherwise exist. In addition, this paragraph does
not assert any fact established by the record in the case and constitutes merely expert
opinion. Plaintiff reserves all of its rights to challenge the admissibility and or
competence of such expert opinion. In any event, plaintiff disagrees with the contentions
of this paragraph as set forth in its memoranda of law.
90.

Plaintiff disputes this paragraph on the grounds that it does not assert any

fact established by the record in the case and constitutes merely expert opinion. Plaintiff
reserves all of its rights to challenge the admissibility and or competence of such expert
opinion. In any event, plaintiff disagrees with the contentions of this paragraph as set
forth in its memoranda of law.

2

91. To the extent this paragraph is based on the purported expert report, plaintiff
disputes the forgoing paragraph on the grounds that it does not assert any fact established
by the record in the case and constitutes merely expert opinion. Plaintiff reserves all of its
rights to challenge the admissibility and or competence of such expert opinion. To the
extent this paragraph is based on the Beauchamp declaration, plaintiff objects because it
is not a statement of fact supported by the record, but rather speculation concerning
future events.
92. Plaintiff disputes this paragraph on the grounds that it does not assert any fact
established by the record in the case and constitutes merely expert opinion. Plaintiff
reserves all of its rights to challenge the admissibility and/or competence of such expert
opinion. In any event, plaintiff disagrees with the contentions of this paragraph as set
forth in its memoranda of law.
Dated: New York, New York
October 23, 2012
Gregory A. Blue
GREGORY A. BLUE, P.C.
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2600
New York, NY 10174
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
by: /s/ Raymond A. Bragar
Raymond A. Bragar
885 Third Ave., Suite 3040
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

3