Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 633

NOTICE by Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC re #578 Proposed Pretrial Order, NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS TO JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER (Attachments: #1 Exhibit F-2, #2 Exhibit I)(Cawley, Douglas)

Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Doc. 633 Att. 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., CITIWARE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, GOOGLE INC., YAHOO! INC., MYSPACE INC., AMAZON.COM INC., PAYPAL INC., MATCH.COM, INC., AOL INC., AND CME GROUP INC., Defendants.

§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

CASE NO. 6:09-cv-269-LED Jury Trial Demanded

PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO GOOGLE INC.'S REBUTTAL DESIGNATIONS

Plaintiff Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC ("Bedrock"), pursuant to the Court's Docket Control Order and Orders amending Docket Control Order entered in this case, provides this list of objections to Google Inc.'s rebuttal depositions designations. Bedrock expressly reserves the right to supplement, augment, or otherwise modify the exchanged designations based on circumstances as they may evolve prior to the commencement of trial. Bedrock's objections to Google's rebuttal deposition designations are made in reliance on the Defendant's trial witness lists and the labeling of those witnesses as will call. At this time, Bedrock objects to Google's rebuttal deposition designations testimony as follows:

BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO GOOGLE INC.'S REBUTTAL DESIGNATIONS
Dallas 320572v1

PAGE 1

Dockets.Justia.com

Deposition of Laurent Chavey - January 7, 2011
From (page:line) 14:9 23:25 32:23 42:17 48:5 49:11 50:14 53:15 56:7 57:3 58:18 59:20 61:11 68:8 94:25 96:14 96:21 100:3 101:4 101:24 102:4 102:8 103:1 104:12 To (page:line) 14:14 24:13 34:8 42:20 48:18 49:14 52:12 54:2 56:16 58:7 58:20 60:24 61:22 68:20 96:4 96:18 99:3 100:5 101:16 102:2 102:5 102:16 103:13 106:24 Objections 801 801 801 801 48:5 - 48:7 - 602; 48:5 48:18 - 801 801 50:14 - 50:19 - NR; 50:14 52:12 - 801 801; Atty Commentary 801 801 801 801 801 801 801 96:14 - INC; 96:14 - 96:18 801 96:21 - 96:22 - INC; 96:21 99:3 - 801 NR; 801 801 801 NR; INC; 801 801 103:4 - 103:13 - NR; 103:1 103:13 - 801 105:19 - 105:24 - NR; 106:13 106:15 STRICKEN; 104:12 - 106:24 - 801 801 801 801 801 801 801

113:11 114:10 123:24 134:5 136:2 137:11

113:16 114:12 127:5 134:8 136:5 137:13

BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO GOOGLE INC.'S REBUTTAL DESIGNATIONS
Dallas 320572v1

PAGE 2

Google 30(b)(6) Deposition of Sunil Daluvoy January 14, 2011
From (page:line) 26:5 30:18 To (page:line) 26:23 31:19 Objections Non-comparable, MIL, H, 801/802 402/403, 801/802, MIL, H

Deposition of Alexey Kuznetsov - January 27, 2011
From (page:line) 87:10 87:15 115:5 115:11 115:15 To (page:line) 87:13 88:3 115:9 115:13 115:18 Objections BER, 403 BER, 403 Leading Leading Leading

Deposition of Mikhail Lotvin - June 4, 2010
From (page:line) 244:16 244:19 244:21 245:6 245:19 To (page:line) 244:17 244:19 245:2 245:17 245:25 Objections 801/802, 403, BER, Privileged 801/802, 403, BER, Privileged 801/802, 403, BER, Privileged 801/802, 403, BER, Privileged 801/802, 403, BER, Privileged

Google 30(b)(6) Deposition of Trisha Weir - January 13, 2011
From (page:line) 58:11 64:20 90:11 To (page:line) 58:20 64:24 91:2 Objections 801/802 801/802 801/802

BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO GOOGLE INC.'S REBUTTAL DESIGNATIONS
Dallas 320572v1

PAGE 3

OBJECTION KEY TO DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS Code 106 Objection This testimony is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it (see F.R.E. 106). This testimony is objectionable because it is not relevant (see F.R.E. 402). Misleading. Confusion of issues. This testimony is objectionable because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Compromise and offer to compromise (FRE 408). This testimony is objectionable because it constitutes testimony on a matter as to which the witness lacks personal knowledge (see F.R.E. 602). This testimony is objectionable because it is opinion testimony by a lay witness that is not reasonably based on perception and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in dispute (see F.R.E. 701). Hearsay. This testimony is objectionable because it is a statement made by one other than the declarant while testifying at trial, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and not subject to any hearsay exception (see F.R.E. 801 and 802). This testimony is objectionable because it concerns a document for which authentication is lacking (see F.R.E. 901). Attorney Client Privilege and/or Work Product Immunity Asked and Answered This testimony is objectionable because it assumes a fact not in evidence. Argumentative (see FRCP 611(a)). Bolstering. This testimony in objectionable because it is improper to bolster the credibility of a witness before credibility is attacked (see FRCP 608(a)). Not best evidence (FRE 1002) Compound Question Calls for Speculation

402 403 408 602 701

801

A A/C AA AF AR B BER CQ CS

BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO GOOGLE INC.'S REBUTTAL DESIGNATIONS
Dallas 320572v1

PAGE 4

E

This testimony is objectionable because it constitutes attempted expert testimony from a person who was not designated as an expert and who did not submit an expert report (see FRCP 26). This testimony is objectionable because it lacks foundation. This testimony is objectionable because it constitutes harrassment or it is unduly embarrassing to the witness (see F.R.E. 611(f)). This testimony is objectionable because it is an incomplete answer. This testimony is objectionable because it has characterized a person or conduct with unwarranted suggestive, argumentative, or impertinent language (see FRCP 103(c); 404-405). Improper opinion testimony by expert witness (FRE 702) Incomplete question/answer. This testimony is objectionable because it is an incomplete question. Mischaracterizes witness's testimony Nonresponsive Outside the scope of Rule 30(b)(6) topics. Vague. Waste of time/Cumulative evidence (FRE 403) Leading the Witness (F.R.E. 611(c)).

F H IA IC

IE INC IQ MC NR OS V WC L

BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO GOOGLE INC.'S REBUTTAL DESIGNATIONS
Dallas 320572v1

PAGE 5

Dated: March 22, 2011.

Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. _/s/ Douglas A. Cawley ________ Douglas A. Cawley, Lead Attorney Texas Bar No. 04035500 [e-mail] Theodore Stevenson, III Texas Bar No. 19196650 [e-mail] Rosemary T. Snider Texas Bar No. 18796500 [e-mail] Scott W. Hejny Texas State Bar No. 24038952 [e-mail] Jason D. Cassady Texas Bar No. 24045625 [e-mail] J. Austin Curry Texas Bar No. 24059636 [e-mail] Phillip M. Aurentz Texas State Bar No. 24059404 [e-mail] Daniel R. Pearson Texas State Bar No. 24070398 [e-mail] McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 214-978-4044 Sam F. Baxter Texas Bar No. 01938000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. [e-mail] 104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 0 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO GOOGLE INC.'S REBUTTAL DESIGNATIONS
Dallas 320572v1

PAGE 6

Robert M. Parker Texas Bar No. 15498000 Robert Christopher Bunt Texas Bar No. 00787165 PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 903-533-9687 E-mail: [e-mail] E-mail: [e-mail] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that, on March 22, 2010, the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this notice was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).

/s/ Jason D. Cassady Jason D. Cassady

______

BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO GOOGLE INC.'S REBUTTAL DESIGNATIONS
Dallas 320572v1

PAGE 7