Albritton v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 111

MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Objections and Motion to Strike Summary Judgment Evidence by Eric Albritton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patton, Nicholas)

Albritton v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Doc. 111

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ERIC M. ALBRITTON, Plaintiff v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. RICHARD FRENKEL, MAULLUN YEN and JOHN NOH, Defendants § § § § § § § § § § §

No. 6:08cv00089

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE Plaintiff, Eric M. Albritton, asserts the following objections to the summary judgment evidence proffered by Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc., Rick Frenkel, Mallun Yen and John Noh. A. Declaration of Richard Frenkel ­ (Ex. 1 to Motion) Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 & 12 contain Frenkel's irrelevant and improper legal conclusions and subjective observations regarding the statements contained in his October 17th and 18th Troll Tracker postings. Frenkel's assertion that his remarks were rhetorical, hyperbolic or expressions of opinion are not probative of any fact in issue because they merely offer conclusions on issues of law that the Court is to decide from an objective standard. See Gateway Logistics Group, Inc. v. Dangerous Goods Mgmt. Austl. Pty, Ltd., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34246 at *20 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2008) (finding that a statement is defamatory per se is a legal question to be resolved by the Court); Fiber Sys. Int'l v. Roehrs, 470 F.3d 1150, 1163 (5th Cir. 2006) ("`In answering this question, the court must construe [each] statement as a whole in light of surrounding circumstances based upon how a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive the entire statement.'") (quoting Gray v. HEB Food Store #4, 941 S.W.2d 327, 329 (Tex.App.-- Corpus Christi 1997 writ denied). Frenkel's self-serving and subjective opinion that he was

Dockets.Justia.com

speaking in rhetoric, hyperbole or opinion when he accused Albritton of conspiring with the clerk to alter court documents to create subject matter jurisdiction where none existed before is not relevant to the Court's consideration of how the reader of ordinary intelligence would interpret those words. Likewise, Frenkel's post hoc characterization of his Troll Tracker postings are not relevant to whether Frenkel acted with actual malice ­ that is whether he knew or recklessly disregarded that the accusations were false. See Brown v. Petrolite Corp., 965 F.2d 38, 46 ­ 47 (5th Cir. Tex. 1992). Accordingly, paragraphs 9 ­ 12 of Frenkel's Declaration should be stricken from the summary judgment record.

B.

Additional Objections to Exhibits EXHIBIT CITATIONS TO EX. IN MSJ fn26 (Frenkel Dec. ¶4). fn. 27 (Frenkel Dec. ¶5). OBJECTION

Ex. 1.D. Ex. to Frenkel Dec. Ex. 1.E. Ex. to Frenkel Dec.

Cisco 2-12 have not been properly authenticated and contain hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 901 and 802. Frenkel2.000452 ­ 456 have not been properly authenticated and contain hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 901 and 802. Ex.1.I. Frenkel Dec. Frenkel.00002 and Frenkel2.000027 have not been Ex. to Frenkel Dec. ¶8 (ref'd in fn. properly authenticated and contain hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 901 and 802. 30, 34, 115,) Ex. 2 ­ Albritton fn 71. 132:6 ­ 134:9. Irrelevant economic damages testimony. Depo FED. R. EVID. 4021 Ex. 3 ­ Maland fn 9, 17, 51, 42:14 ­ 24; 54:7 ­ 25; 56:16 ­ 58:25. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Depo 56, 79. Ex. 4 ­ Mathis fn 12, 53, 80. 42:3 ­ 18. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Depo. Ex. 7 ­ Provines fn 56. 21:1-6 & 21-24. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Depo Ex. 8 ­ Moore fn. 16, 17, 51, 8:8 ­ 21; 11:7 ­ 12:22; 23:4 ­ 24:11. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Depo 52.
The objections to deposition testimony contained herein are lodged to Defendants' specific page and line designations that contain objectionable testimony as well as any additional objectionable testimony contained in the Exhibits. For example, fn. 71 cites to 132:23-133:1 and 134:2-3. Cisco included all of the testimony on pages 132134 in Ex. 2, presumably to provide context. Because 132:6-134:9 is replete with irrelevant material, Plaintiff objects to the entire exchange.
1

2

Ex. 9 ­ Paar Depo

fn. 18, 20, 40, 7:7 ­ 21; 8:2 ­ 8; 8:15 ­ 21; 13:5 ­ 11. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Lack of personal knowledge. FED. R. EVID. 50. 602. Ex. 10 ­ Wilson fn. 19. 8:4 ­ 18. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Depo. Ex. 13 ­ Lafitte fn. 56. 16:11 ­ 24. Lack of personal knowledge. FED. R. EVID. Depo. 602. Ex. 24 ­ fn. 85. EMA 1363 has not been properly authenticated and McAndrews e-mail contains hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 901 and 802. Ex. 25 ­ eBay fn. 89. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Trascript Ex. 26 ­ IP Section fn. 90. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. Newsletter 802. Insufficient authentication. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. Ex. 27 ­ Texas fn. 94. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. Lawyer ­ venue 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. reform Ex. 28 ­ IP Law fn. 95. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. 360 ­ venue reform Ex. 29 ­ Nat. Law fn. 96. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. Journal ­ EDTX 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. patent docket Ex. 30 ­ The fn. 97. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. American Lawyer ­ 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. Taming Texas Ex. 31 ­ Yahoo fn. 98. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. Finance article 802. FED. R. EVID. 901. Ex. 32 ­ Of Fire fn. 91. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. Ants and Claim Construction ­ Yale Law Review Ex. 33 ­ V&E Firm fn. 99. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. News ­ Application 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. of KSR Ex. 34 ­ Inside fn. 100. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. Counsel ­ Small 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. Town Attracts High Stakes IP Cases Ex. 35 ­ Dahl fn. 101. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. article on Marshall 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. IP Docket Ex. 36 ­ Yahoo fn. 102. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. Finance article re: 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. In re Volkswagen Ex. 37 ­ WSJ fn. 103. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. article on In re 3

Volkswagen Ex. 38 ­ Austin fn. 104. Statesman article on Marshall IP Docket Ex. 40 ­ Fitzgerald fn. 92. article ­ Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution Ex. 41 ­ Schreiner fn. 93. & Baca ­ Status of IP Reform

Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901. Irrelevant. FED. R. EVID. 402. Hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 802. Insufficient authentication. FED. R. EVID. 901.

Because the objectionable materials identified above are not competent summary judgment evidence, Plaintiff respectfully requests that they be stricken from the record and that the Court not consider them for purposes of deciding Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Nicholas H. Patton Nicholas H. Patton (SBN 63035) Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder, LLP 4605 Texas Boulevard Texarkana, Texas 75503 903.792.7080 / 903.792.8233 (Fax) Patricia L. Peden Law Office of Patricia L. Peden 610 16th Street, Suite 400 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: [phone] James A. Holmes (SBN 00784290) The Law Offices of James Holmes, P.C. 605 South Main, Suite 203 Henderson, TX 75654 903.657.2800 / 903.657.2855 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this 15th day of December, 2008. /s/ Nicholas H. Patton Nicholas H. Patton

5