Isys Technologies v. Google et al

Filing 29

RESPONSE to Motion re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Objections To ISYS' Exhibits filed in Support of TRO filed by Defendant Google. (Buschmann, Craig)

COOLEY LLP
Peter J. Willsey (pro hac vice pending)
Brendan J. Hughes (pro hac vice pending)
Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-7798
Telephone: [phone]; Facsimile: [phone]
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
Roger Myers (pro hac vice)
Robert Stolebarger (pro hac vice pending)
Craig Buschmann, #10696
Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
299 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2263
Telephone: [phone]; Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ISYS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Nevada
Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

GOOGLE INC., a Delaware Corporation;
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; ACER AMERICA CORP.,
a California Corporation; AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation; and BEST BUY CO.,
INC., a Minnesota Corporation;

Case No. 2:11-CV-507 CW

OBJECTIONS OF GOOGLE INC. TO
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT
OF ISYS’ MOTION FOR TRO

Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.

Defendant Google Inc. hereby objects to Exhibits 1-12 submitted as attachments to
Plaintiff’s Memorandum In Support Of Its Motion For Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction dated June 6, 2011. The objections are set forth below.

#63401 v1 saf

OBJECTIONS
EXHIBIT 1
OBJECTIONS
1.

Hearsay: This is hearsay that is inadmissible under FRE 802.

2.

No Sponsor: There is no witness presenting this document and attesting to its

authenticity and pertinence. In turn, it is inadmissible under FRE 901.
3.

Irrelevant: At the very bottom of page 2 of 6, it shows the symbol/phrase “© 2010 Xi3

Corporation.” Thus Exhibit 1 is owned by a company not a party to these proceedings. In turn,
it is inadmissible under FRE 402.

EXHIBIT 2
OBJECTIONS
1.

Hearsay: This is hearsay that is inadmissible under FRE 802.

2.

No Sponsor: There is no witness presenting this document and attesting to its

authenticity and pertinence. In turn, it is inadmissible under FRE 901.
3.

Irrelevant: On page 6, the related Terms and Conditions assert that the material is owned

by ChromiumPC entity. The Copyright is owned by Chromium PC. Chromium PC apparently
has an address at 299 South Main, Salt Lake City, as seen on page 18 of 25. Thus Exhibit 2 is
owned by a company not a party to these proceedings. In turn, it is inadmissible under FRE 402.

2
#63401 v1 saf

EXHIBIT 4
OBJECTIONS
1.

Hearsay. This is hearsay that is inadmissible under FRE 802.

2.

No Sponsor. There is no witness presenting this document and attesting to its

authenticity and pertinence. In turn, it is inadmissible under FRE 901.

EXHIBIT 5
OBJECTIONS
1.

Hearsay. This is hearsay that is inadmissible under FRE 802.

2.

No Sponsor. There is no witness presenting this document and attesting to its

authenticity and pertinence. In turn, it is inadmissible under FRE 901.

EXHIBIT 6
OBJECTIONS
1.

Hearsay. This is hearsay that is inadmissible under FRE 802.

2.

No Sponsor. There is no witness presenting this document and attesting to its

authenticity and pertinence. In turn, it is inadmissible under FRE 901.

EXHIBIT 12
OBJECTION
1.

Offer of Settlement. This exhibit is inadmissible under FRE 408 to the extent it contains

an offer of settlement.

3
#63401 v1 saf

EXHIBIT 13 - Declaration of Jason Sullivan
OBJECTIONS
1.

Lack of Authentication. The document is not authenticated. The District of Utah

CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Manual (Jan. 19, 2011), available at
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/utahadminproc.pdf, prescribes that e-signatures of nonattorneys is sufficient only if (a) the filing attorney certifies that he or she has “the signed
original of the document which is available for inspection during normal business hours by the
Court or a party to this action” and provides his or her e-signature; (b) a scanned copy of the
signature page is submitted with the non-attorney's e-signature; or (c) the scanned copy of the
signature page is electronically submitted. Id. at 4. Because the declaration is not authenticated
in accordance with the Court's rules the declaration is inadmissible under FRE 901.

EXHIBIT 14 - Declaration of Aaron Roswell
OBJECTIONS
1.

Lack of Authentication. The document is not authenticated for the same reason that

Exhibit 13 is not authenticated. Because the declaration is not authenticated in accordance with
the Court's rules the declaration is inadmissible under FRE 901.

4
#63401 v1 saf

EXHIBIT 15 - Declaration of David Politis
OBJECTIONS
1.

Lack of Authentication. The document is not authenticated for the same reason that

Exhibit 13 is not authenticated. Because the declaration is not authenticated in accordance with
the Court's rules the declaration is inadmissible under FRE 901.

Dated this 13th day of June, 2011.

/s/ Craig Buschmann
Roger Myers
Robert Stolebarger
Craig Buschmann
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN, LLP
299 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Attorneys for Google Inc.

5
#63401 v1 saf

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 13th day of June, 2011, I caused a true and correct copy of the
OBJECTIONS OF GOOGLE INC. TO EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ISYS’
MOTION FOR TRO to be served as follows:
Todd E. Zenger
Dax D. Anderson
Joshua S. Rupp
KIRTON & McCONKIE
1800 Eagle Gate Tower
60 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

_____ U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
_____ Hand Delivery
_____ Facsimile
_____ Overnight courier
X E-Mail and/or CM/ECF

By: /s/ Sherice L. Atterton

6
#63401 v1 saf