Free
Message: For Wheels
Reply New Message
Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message
JENNIFER J. SCHMIDT (State Bar No. 295579)
MADELEINE E. GREENE (State Bar No. 263120)
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
One Market Plaza
Spear Tower, Suite 3300
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 947-2000
Facsimile: (415) 947-2099
E-Mail:
Attorneys for Defendant
DROPCAM, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DROPCAM, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:14-cv-01579-BEN-DAB
DEFENDANT DROPCAM, INC.’S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER
SCHMIDT
Date: Sept. 29, 2014
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Courtroom 5A
Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Defendant Dropcam, Inc. (“Dropcam”) responds to Plaintiff e.Digital
Corporation’s (“e.Digital”) Objections To The Declaration of Jennifer Schmidt In
Support Of Defendant Dropcam, Inc.’s Motion To Transfer (D.I. 25)
(“Objections”) as follows:
e.Digital’s Objections are improper and without merit. e.Digital fails to cite
a single federal or local rule as grounds for its Objections. Further, e.Digital makes
the same groundless objections to nearly every statement in the testimony of
Jennifer Schmidt and seeks to prevent the introduction of nearly every fact offered
by this witness. Such seemingly indiscriminate objections amount to “blanket
objections” and are wholly improper. See
Arevalo v. Hyatt Corp., No. CV 12-
7054 JGB (VBKx), 2013 WL 2042555, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“The court need
not consider ‘boilerplate recitations’ and ‘blanket objections submitted without
analysis applied to specific items of evidence.’”) (quoting
Doe v. Starbucks, Inc.,
No. SACV 08-0582 AG (CWx), at* 1 (C.D. Cal. 2009)). The Court should ignore
these unsupported blanket objections.
e.Digital’s Objections are also substantively without merit. For example,
e.Digital objects to certain of Ms. Schmidt’s statements as failing to establish
personal knowledge. However, Ms. Schmidt’s statements allege facts apparent
from the face of the documents, and require no further testimony in order to
establish personal knowledge. Thus, e.Digital’s Objections are both procedurally
and substantively unsupported.
No. Testimony and/or Exhibit Objection
1.
“Collectively, U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,633,076 and 7,599,935
name at least seven thirdparty
inventors located in the
Northern District of
California.” (¶ 4.)
Lacks foundation. Failure to establish
personal knowledge. Misstates the
evidence. The referenced patents (Dkt
#19-5, pp. 1,
et seq. and 31, et seq.)
were issued in December 2009 and
October 2009, respectively. The
declarant has failed to establish
personal knowledge of the respective
locations of the referenced inventors
and Dropcam has failed to request
judicial notice of these patents and the
statements made therein. At best, the
patents only state the location of the
inventors at the time the patents were
issued nearly five years ago. To the
extent the declaration implies the
patents identify the
current location of
the inventors of the referenced patents,
this statement lacks foundation and
misstates the evidence.
Response:
The declarant is testifying as to facts
apparent from the face of the exhibits
attached thereto.
2.
“Attached hereto as Exhibit C
is a true and correct copy of
the statistical report ‘Patent
Litigation Filings and
Outcomes by Court,’ Lex
Machina (January 2014).”
Exhibit C. (¶ 5; Dkt # 19-5 at
p. 49,
et seq.)
Lacks foundation. Failure to establish
personal knowledge. The declarant
has failed to establish personal
knowledge of the assertions contained
in the Exhibit and Dropcam has failed
to request judicial notice of the
document or the contents thereof. The
declarant also fails to state how the
exhibit was obtained and/or where it
can be found other than a broad
reference in the body of the document
to “lexmachina.com.” On that basis,
the exhibit lacks foundation. The
exhibit further lacks foundation in that
it does not reveal the source of the
alleged data contained therein, how it
was compiled, and/or any other data
that would be relevant in determining
the accuracy of the data on which
Dropcam seeks to rely, including,
without limitation, the number and
length of any stays in cases that
proceeded to trial.
Response:
The declarant is testifying as to the
identification of the exhibit attached
thereto. The content of the exhibit
speaks for itself.
Dated: September 22, 2014 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
By:
Stefani E. Shanberg
Attorneys for Defendant
DROPCAM, INC.
15 Recommendations
Reply New Message
Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message
Share
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply