liberi v taitz (c.d. ca) - 443 - objection re: motion to dismiss case 412[recap] (objection to...

8/3/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 443 - OBJECTION re: MOTION to Dismiss Case 412[RECAP] (OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' "R

1/19

I2345bl8O

l 0l l1 2t il 4l 5l 6t 7l 8l 9202 l22.1, )' ) AL A

25, o272 8

Michael .Niborsk i State arNo. 192111)e-mai mniborskiDorvorcashman.comPRYORCASHMAI\ LLP1801CenturyParkE,ast, 4thFloorLosAngeles, al i fornia 00672302Te l : ( 3 I 0 )556 -9608Fax: 310) 56-9670TornJ. FerberQtrohac vice admission ending)e-rnai [email protected]. BagleY Vo hacviceadmissionending)e-rnai rbasTev'fDbrvorcashman.omPRYORCASHMNN IP7 Tirnes quareNew York. New York 10036-6569Tel : (212) 26-0188Fax: 212)798-6382Attorneys or DefbndantDaylightChernicalnformation ystems,nc.

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTCENTRALDISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERN IVISONLISA LIBERI, ta l . ,

Plaintiffs,V S .

ORLY TAITZ, et al.,Def-endants.

CaseNo.CV I I -00485AG (AJWx)DBFENDANT DAYLIGHTCHEMICAL INFORMATIONSYSTEM. INC.'S OBJECTIONSTO AND MOTION TO STRIKEPLAINTIFFS' IMPROPERLYFILED "RESPONSE NOPPOSITION'' TO MOTION TODISMISSAND DECLARATIONOF PHILIP J. BERGDate: December 9,2011Time: 10:00 .m.Judse:Hon. AndrewJ. GuilfordPlaie: Courlroorn0DlReplvMemorandumiledboicurrenttyl

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 443 Filed 12/05/11 Page 1 of 19 Page ID#:10257


2/19

I2345ol8o

l 0l lt 2l aI J

t 41-sl 6t 7l 8l 9202 l22L - )

1 A. T

25, b

2 728

DefendantDaylight Chemical nformationSystems,nc. ("DCIS") herebyobjects o andmoves o strike he following documentsiled by Plaintiffs noppositiono DCIS'sMotion o DismissPlaintiffs'FirstAmendedComplaint:1)the"Responsen Opposition"o theMotion o Dismiss DocketNo. aa}); and 2)theDeclaration f Phil ipJ.Berg,Esquire the BergDeclaration")DocketNo.440-3),Neitherof thesedocumentss procedurally alid and he Courtshouldnotconsider itherof them. Furlher,n addition o beingwholly nappropriate,heBergDeclarations filledwith objectionableontent, sset orth n detailbelow.I . The "Responsen Opposit ion" s An ImproperFi l ing And The Court

ShouldNot Consider t .The"Responsen Opposition"s a poorlydisguised ttempt y Plaintiffso

circumventhepage imit appl icableo theirOpposit iono DCIS'sMotion. t t isloadedwith impermissiblergument ndnotpermitted y any ule. Plaintiffs'Memorandum f Points ndAuthorities theonly appropriatelace or Plaintiffsto rnake heirargument takes ull advantagef the Court's25 page imit. (SeeDocketNo. 440-2;LocalRule 1 -6.) Indeed,hesignature lockon he 25thpageof Plaint i f - fs ' emorandumxtends ast ine28, .e. , heostensibleinalperrnissibleineof text. (See ocalRule l-3.2.) Dissat isf iedith heselimitations, laintiffs reatedheir Responsen Opposition" ndplaced dditionaargumenthere.This documents notpermissible nd he Courtshould trike tanddisregardhe nappropriate rgumentt contains.I I . The Berg Declarat ions Procedural lynval id.

It is fundamentalhat he Courtmaynot consider ny materials utsidehepleadingsn rulingon a Motion o Dismiss nderRule 12(b)(6).See. .g.,Branchv. Tunnell,14F.3d 449,453 9'hCir. 1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v.Richard einer Co.,896F.2d1542,1555 . l9 (9thCir.1990)). t goeswithoutsaying hat his is preciselywhat he BergDeclarations - materialoutsidehe



3/19

I2aJ/1-

o789

l 01 tt 2t at l

t 4l 5l 6t 7l 81 9202 122L- )

2425L 02728

pleadings. ndeed,t is filled with objectionable vidence ndevenargument, ndtheCourtshould ot considert at his ime.rIII. The Berg )eclarationContainsNothingBut Inadmissible Evidence."

If the Courl decides o consider heBerg Declaration t all - and,assetforthabove, t is respectfully ubmittedhat t shouldnot - it shoulddecline oconsider nyof its objectionablend nadmissibleontent.DCIS hereby ubmitsthe bllowingspecific videntiary bjectionso theBergDeclaration:

' DCIS respectfullyubmitshat heCourtshouldopt not o considerheBergDeclaration nd reatDCIS'smotionasone or summaryudgment.See. .g..Branch l4 F.3dat 453 quoting ed.R. Civ. P. 12(b)).Discoveryn thiscasesnot sufficientlyar along indeed,herehasbeenno discovery y or of DCIS) opermit hepartieso submit ulsomeevidence nderRule 56.

EVIDENCE OBJECTIONS RULINGq) DefendantOrly Taitzthreatenedo takeme downand o do so shewasgoingto destroymy Paralegal,PlaintiffLisa Liberi andgetrid of her. Defendant rlyTaitzwassuccessfulndestroying laintiffLisaLiber i .

ImproperlySubmittedEvidence.The entireBergDeclaration,including hisparagraph,is nvalidbecauseheCourtmaynot considerany materials utside hepleadingsn rulingon aMotion o Disrniss nderRule 2(bX6). See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnell. [email protected]) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542 , 555 . l 9 (9 thCi r . l990) ) .

!n

Sustained.Overruled.



4/19

I2a-)45o789

l 0l l1 2t al - )

t 4l 51 61 '7l 8l 9202 122a az-)242526272 8

PrejudicialEvidence[FRE 4031. Mr. Berg'sunfounded, nclear, ndconclusory ssertionshatMrs. Taitz "threatened"him and"destroyed"Ms.Liberi areprejudicial,andsuchprejudiceoutweighsanyprobative alue hisevidence ighthave.Improper Evidenceof aWrong IFRE 404(b)(1)1.Mr. Berg'sunfounded,unclear, ndconclusoryassertionshat Mrs. Taitz"threatened" im and"destroyed"Ms. Libericonstitutenadmissibleevidence ubmittedinorder o show hat on aparticular ccasionheperson cted naccordance ith" aparticular rait.Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundation oestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofthe socalled destruction"of Ms. Liberi .Improper LegalConclusion FRE 7011.This estimony xpresseslegalconclusion nd husis not "helpful o a clearunderstandingf thewitnesses'estimony rthe determination f a factin issue."



5/19

I2J

456789

l 0ill 2t aI J

t 41 5l 6l 7l 8l 9202 122L J

2425l o2728

qTii l - DefendantOrly Taitzalsosetout to destroyPlaintiffLisaOstel la ecausePlaint i f f isaOstel larefused o lie and alsiffinformationn order osubstantiate efendantOrlyTaitz's alsestatements,false laimsand iesperlainingo "hacking","cracking", nd heftofdonatedmoneyandof her(Taitz's)website.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence. The entireBerg Declaration,including his paragraph,is invalid becauseheCourtmay not considerany materials utside hepleadingsn rulingon aMotion o Dismiss nderRule 2(bX6). See, .s. ,Branch . Tunnell.14@'gi1.1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. ,896 .2d1542 , 555 . l 9 (9 thCi r . l990) ) .PrejudicialEvidence[FRB 4031. Mr. Berg'sunfounded, nclear, ndconclusory ssertionshatMrs.Taitz"setout odestroy"Ms. Ostella ndmade alseclaimsandengagedn otherdishonestbehavior reprejudicial,andsuchprejudiceoutweighs nyprobativevalue his evidencemiehthave.Improper Evidenceof aWrong IFRE 404(bxl)1.Mr. Berg'sunfounded,unclear, ndconclusoryassertionshat Mrs. Taitz"setout to destroy"Ms.Ostellaandmade alseclaimsandengagednotherdishonest ehaviorconstitutenadmissibleevidence ubmittedinorder o show hat on aoarticular ccasionhe

I Sustained.! Overruled.



6/19

I23AT

5ol89

l 0l 1t 2r 31 4t 5l 61 7I t tl 9202 122/. )2425) A2 l28

personacted naccordance ith" aparticular rait.Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRB 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundation oestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofthe socalledattempted"destruction" f Ms.Ostel la, s.Ostel la'sactions, r Mrs. Taitz'sactions.Improper LegalConclusion FRE 701|,.This estimony xpresseslegalconclusion nd husis not"helpful o a clearunderstandingf thewitnesses'estimony rthe determination f a factin issue."

t r Al l ' - r Thiscases notabout nytypeof "intra-BirlherMovement -eud", or s t a"politicallymotivatedskirmish".This case saboutDefendantOrlyTaitz's hreats gainstmeand hePlaintiffs isaLiberi ["Liberi"] andLisaOstella "Ostella"].Thecase gainstDaylightChemicalnformationSystems,nc. andYosefTaitz s due o theirassistanceo DefendantOrly Taitz n accesso andgainingof Plaintiffsprivatedata,without he knowledge

ImproperlySubmittedEvidence.The entireBergDeclaration,including hisparagraph,is invalidbecauseheCourtmaynot consideranymaterials utside hepleadingsn ruling on aMotion o Dismiss nderRule12(bX6).See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnel l . 4@'gi1.1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542 ,1555.19 9 thCi r .19e0) ) .

E Sustained.! Overruled.



7/19

I23AT

5678o

l 0l lt 21 al - )

1 4l 5l 6t 7l 8l 9202 122a a1, -)') ,lL A

25262728

andlorpermission f thePlaintiffs, n carryingouther hreats gainst hePlaintiffs.PrejudicialEvidenceIFRE 4031. Mr. Berg'sunfounded, nclear,andconclusory ssertionshatMrs. Tai z " threatened"Plaintiffsareprejudicial,and suchprejudiceoutweighs nyprobativevalue hisevidencemishthave.Improper LegalConclusionFRE 7011.This estimony xpresseslegalconclusion nd husis not "helpful to a clearunderstandingf thewitnesses'estimony rthe determination f a factin issue."

qT5t - Private ata ncludes ut snot irnited o full SocialSecurity umbers, ates fbirths,spouses rivatedata,places f birth,maidennames,mother'smaidennalnes,inancial ecords,credit eports, onsumerreports, ackgroundhecks,rnedicalnforrnation,ealedcourtcase nformation,adoption ecords, laintiffschildren'snformation. tc..including ll of Plaintiffsprimary dentificationinformation.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence.The entireBerg Declaration,including hisparagraph,is nvalidbecauseheCourtmay not consideranymaterials utsidehepleadingsn ruling on aMotion o Disrniss nderRule12(b)(6).See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnell. 4@cir .1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542, 555 . l9 (9thCi r .1990) ) .




8/19

I2J

+

678L)

l 0ilt 2

l 8l 9202 12223242526

l aI J

t 4l 51 6t 7

2728

Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundation FRB 90U.There s no foundation oestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofthe nformationdescribedin thisparagraph.Improper LegalConclusionFRE 7011.This estimonyexpresseslegalconclusion nd husis not "helpful to a clearunderstandingf thewitnesses'estimony rthe determination f a factin issue."

f l 6 DaylightChemicalInformationSystems,nc.["Daylight"] brings orth ntheirMotion o Dismiss["MTD"] thatDaylight'sproducts re or the"chemical" urpose.Aspled n PlaintiffsFirstAmendedComplaintl"FAC"l Daylight s asoftware evelopmentcompany, ot a chemicalcompany.Theirscripts renot ndigenouso thepharmaceuticalndustry.Anythingcanbe nserledinto he

quotes',butdisplayingheirscriptswithchemical quations nsurestheirapplications illappearmorecomplicatedohide he rue unctionalityof theirprograms.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence.The entireBergDeclaration,including his paragraph,is nvalidbecauseheCourtmaynot consideranymaterials utside hepleadingsn rulingon aMotion o Dismiss nderRule 2(bX6). See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnell.14@'giy.1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co.,896F.2d1542, 555n.19 9thCi r .19e0) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 60211'ack ofFoundation FRE 90U.There s no foundation oestablishhatMr. Berghasoersonal nowledeeof




9/19

I2J

45ol8L)

l 0l l1 2l 3l 4l 51 6t 7l 81 9202 1221, -)

2425262728

DCIS'sbusiness.

117 As explainedn PlaintiffsFAC,Dayl ight 'sapplications re n thearchitecturef Oracle ndreach uftherwith othersoftware omponentsdeveloped nderDaylight,Twilight LLC,MetaMorphics LC,Chemolnformatics ndotheraffiliates.ThisgaveDaylightbackdooraccessto the ntelius andReedDefendantsatabases.hisis especiallyruewithsystemshat arepartners;suchas.Oracle.SunMicrosystems, DLElsevier, niversit ies,pharmaceutialcompanies,the ReedDefendantsndlnore.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence.TheentireBerg Declaration,including his paragraph,is invalidbecauseheCourtmaynot considerany materials utside hepleadingsn ruling on aMotion o Dismiss nderRule12(bX6).See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnel l .14@'gir.1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896F.2d1542 , 555 . l 9 (9 thCi r . l990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundation oestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofDCIS'sbusiness.

E Sustained.n Overruled.

f l 8 Contraryo Daylight'sstatementsn theirMTD,Daylighthasalways eenwell awareof the dualpurpose f theirsoftwareandscripts.Theirsharedtool serverand ibrariesarescriptedor GlobalAccess:$DY ROOT/lib$DY-ROOT/bin

Improperly SubmittedEvidence. The entireBergDeclaration,including his paragraph,is nvalidbecauseheCourtmaynot considerany materials utside hepleadingsn ruling on aMotion to DismissunderRule 2(bX6). See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnell.14@'giy.1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc .v. RichardFeiner& Co..896F 2d

! Sustained.E Overruled.



10/19

I2aJ

45b

789

l 01 l1 2l aI J

l 4l 5l 6t 1

l 81 9202 l221, -)

2425/ n

272 8

1542, 555 . l9 (9thCi r .1990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRB 9011.There s no foundation oestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofDCIS'sbusiness.

lTe As shown n Daylight'sscripting ndmanuals,iledwith this CourtasExhibits" | 41" (DCfSCartridge);"142"(DCIS'fingerprinting);|43"(DCISDualPurposeManual); nd 144" (DCISDayCart)appearingnDocketEntryNumbers 90-26 and190-27, ndaspledin PlaintiffsFAC, heDollarsign n theircodescript ingndicates lobalAccess.The dollarsien scalledSigil nprogrammlng.Understandingprogramwith GlobalAccessequiresknowledge bout hecontext ndhiddenabilit ies.Understandinghe accesscreates pipeline nto aprogram rom theroot thatallows egistry ccess ndediting.Daylight s wellawareof thesehiddenabilit iesn theirprograms.Understandinghe useofSigilVariables ntailsunderstandinglargeportionof the softwareprosram.Davliehtheld

Improperly SubmittedEvidence. The entireBergDeclaration,including hisparagraph,is invalidbecauseheCourtmaynot considerany materials utside hepleadingsn ruling onaMotion o Dismiss nderRule 2(bX6). See, .g. ,Branch . Tunnell, 4@giy .1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542 ,1555.19 9thCi r . l990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021; ack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundationoestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofDCIS'sbusiness.

!I


l 0



11/19

I2345o78L'

l 0l l1 2l al - )

l 4l 5l 61 7l 8l 9202 122L- )1 A, T

L )262728

'hackerclasses' ith their'krewe'monthly, or years.

t i 0 Daylight 's ccessodatabaseervers,unningprogramsnternally ouldalert emoteaccesso ITpersonnel f unauth rizedaccess nd unctions,f theproper ecuritys in place.But,havingNeil SankeyandThe SankeyFirm runinfonnation equestscreated hard ink tocompiled nformation hatwaseasier o take rom theReedand nteliusDefendantsystems.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence. The entireBergDeclaration,including his paragraph,is nvalidbecauseheCourtmaynot consideranymaterials utside hepleadingsn ruling on aMotion o Dismiss nderRule 2(bX6). See, .9. ,Branch . Tunnell , [email protected]) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542 , 555 . l9 (9 thCi r . l990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundation oestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledge fDCIS'sbusiness.

E Sustained.E Overruled.

f l n Informationon the oolsthat nakehese unctionspossibleor Daylight, ndthat areembedded ithinthearchitecture f serverslike Oracleare ocatedntheirmanuals n theirwebsiteathttp //www.da),1ght. om/products/tooserver. tml.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence.The entireBerg Declaration,including his paragraph,is nvalidbecauseheCourtmaynot considerany materials utside hepleadingsn ruling on aMotion o Dismiss nderRule 2(b)(6). See, .g. ,Branch . Tunnell,[email protected]) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. Richard


n!

l l



12/19

2aJ

45o789

l 0l l1 2l 31 4l 5l 61 ll 81 9202 l22a a1, -)

2125262728

Feiner Co.,896F.2d1542 ,1555.19 9 thCi r .1990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRB 6021;Lack ofFoundation FRE 90U.There s no foundation oestablishhat Mr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofDCIS'sbusiness.

fl 12 The Remote oolkitconsists f a serverhatlocal ly rocessesl lDaylightToolkit unctionsfor a remote lient. For hecostof networkoverhead,toolkitclients hare hetoolki tserver 'sesources,e.g.,CPUpower, sharedprograms, atabases,tc. Ingeneral, ardware ndoperating ystemsuppliedrnethodologyf Dayl ghtalgorithms.A low-costMacintosh r PC clientmaybewith PC'sandMacintoshesannotefficiently andlehe high-performance onnectedo aremoteoolkit server n amorepowerfulUnixworkstation.As anexample, SMILESmightbe enterednto a Macintoshwhichwould send t to aUnix machineo beinterpreted;he Macintoshmight hen equest atabasesearching nddepictiongenerationia theUnixmachine or displayon theMacintosh.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence.The entireBergDeclaration,including his paragraph,is nval idbecauseheCourtmaynotconsideranymaterials utside hepleadingsn rul ingon aMotion o Dismiss nderRule12(b) (6) . ee. .g. ,Branch . Tunnell . 4@ci' .1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542 , 555 .19 9 thCi r .1990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundationoestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofDCIS 's us iness

! Sustained.n Overruled.

l 2



13/19

12aJ

45o789

l 0l ll 2l 3l 41 51 61 7l 8l 9202 1221, -)1 AL +

2526272 8

'T13 Theprogrammingenvironments identical olocal oolkit programmingwith the addition f twofunctions o connecto anddisconnectrom he oolkitserver.

Improperly SubmittedBvidence. The entireBergDeclaration,including hisparagraph,is invalidbecauseheCourtmay not consideranymaterials utside hepleadingsn ruling on aMotion o Dismiss nderRule12(bX6).See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnell. 4@cir .1994) quotingHal RoachStudios,nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542 ,1555. l 9 (9 thCi r .1990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 90U.There s no foundationoestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledge fDCIS 's us iness.

E Sustained.n Overruled.

''1Tl4 Programswrittenwith theRemote oolkitwill notoperaten a stand-aloneenvironmenta RemoteToolkit Servermustbeaccessibleveran Pnetwork).

Improperly SubmittedEvidence. TheentireBergDeclaration,including his paragraph,is invalidbecauseheCourlmaynot consideranymaterials utsidehepleadingsn rulingon aMotion o Dismiss nderRule12(bX6).See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnell.14@'giy.1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc .v. RichardFeiner Co. ,896 .2d1542, 555 . l9 (9thCi r .1990) ) .

n Sustained.E Overruled.

I J



14/19

12-)/T56l89

l 0t lt 21 al - )

l 4l 5l ( rt 71 81 9202122a l1, -)

2425262728

Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundationoestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofDCIS 's us iness.

q Tl 5t ' " - All Dayl ight oolki tfunctionsaresupported ythe4.5 Remote oolkit.TheRemote oolkit server(daytoolserver)s availableon all supported nixplatforms.Only heclientsideof the remoteoolkitexists n personalcomputers,vailableorMacintoshviaMacTCP)andPC/WindowsviaWinSockets).

Improperly SubmittedEvidence.TheentireBergDeclaration,including hisparagraph,is invalidbecauseheCourlmaynot consideranymaterials utside hepleadingsn rulingon aMotion o Dismiss nderRule12(bX6).See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnel l . 4@ci ' .1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542 , 555 . 19 g thCi r .1990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 60211'ack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundation oestablishhat Mr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofDCIS'sbusiness.

nn


'1Tl6 Also n theToolkit s TheConversion oolkitwhichis airnedat facilitatingmigrationof data nto andout of Daylightsoftware.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence.The entireBergDeclaration,including his paragraph,is nvalidbecauseheCourtmaynot consideranv materials utside he

n Sustained.! Overruled.

t 4



15/19

I2J

45678o

1 0l l1 21 al - )

l 4l 5l 6l at tt 81 9202 l22L- )

2425l o2728

pleadingsn ruling on aMotion o DismissunderRule12(b)(6).See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnell.14@'giy.1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co.,896F.2d1542, 555n.19 9thCi r .1990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundationoestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofDCIS'sbusiness.

' lTl7 Defendants o se Taitzbyand hroughDaylightusedDaylight' toolsoutlinedherein o access laintiffsprivatedata rom theReedand nteliusDefendantsdatabases,omputers ndservers.YosefTa\tzut i l ized is ski l ls. ccess.and ob functionshatheusesn h is ineofernployment ith Daylight.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence. The entireBergDeclaration,including hisparagraph,is nvalidbecauseheCourtmaynotconsideranymaterials utside hepleadingsn rul ingon aMotion o Dismiss nderRule 2(bX6) .See, .9. ,Branch . Tunnel l , 4@gir .1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542, 555n.19 9thCi r .1990) ) .Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundation FRE 90U.There s no foundationoestablishhatMr . Berghaspersonal nowledeeof

!n


t 5



16/19

I234

o78L)

l 0l l1 21 al - )

l 41 5l 6t 7l 8l 9202 122

2425l o2728

DCIS'sbusiness.

tT18 All the nformationhereinis pled n PlaintiffsFACandexplainedn Exhibits" |41" through744"appearing sDocketEntryNumbers190-26 nd 190-27 This s how Yosef TaitzthroughDCIS was able oaccess laintiffs rivatedata, hat Mr. Taitz hroughhis Corporation, aylightprovided o Defendant rlyTaitz. With theprivatedataof Plaintiffs,DefendantOrly Taitz carried ut herthreats f harm owards hePlaintiffs.As a result,Plaintiffssuffered everedamases.

Improperly SubmittedEvidence. The entireBergDeclaration,including hisparagraph,is invalidbecauseheCourtmay not consideranymaterials utside hepleadingsn ruling on aMotion o DismissunderRule12(bX6).See. .g. ,Branch . Tunnell. 4@'giy.1994) quotingHal RoachStudios,nc.v. RichardFeiner Co.,896F.2d1542 , 555 .19 gthCi r .1990) ) .PrejudicialEvidenceIFRE 4031. Mr. Berg'sunfounded, nclear, ndconclusory ssertionhatMrs. Taitz "threatened"Plaintiffss prejudicial,andsuchprejudiceoutweighs nyprobativevalue hisevidencemighthave.Improper Evidenceof aWrong IFRE 404(bxl)1.Mr. Berg'sunfounded,unclear, ndconclusoryassertionhatMrs. Taitz"threatened" laintiffsconstitutesnadmissibleevidence ubmitted inorder o show hat on aparticular ccasionhepersonacted naccordance ith" aparticular rait.

! Sustained.E Overruled.

l 6



17/19

I2jAT

5678o

l 0l lt 71 at - )

1 41 5l 61 ' 7t tl t it 9202 122232425262728

Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundation oestablishhat Mr. Berghaspersonal nowledge fDCIS'sbusiness.Improper LegalConclusionFRE 7011.This estimony xpresseslegalconclusion nd husisnot"helpful o a clearunderstandingf thewitnesses'estimony rthe determination f a factin issue."

'11l9 Defendant rly Taitzpublished ll theprivatedataol'Plaintiffs hatshereceivedrom he SankeyDefendants,erhusband,YosefTaitzby and hroughandwith the useofDefendant aylightsools,theReedand nteliusDefendantshrough heInternet, ass mail ing,postalmailings,RSS eeds,repeatedly,ncludingsendingt internationally.Al l of whichcausedPlaintiffs evere eriousdamages.DefendantOrlyTaitzcouldnothavecompleted ergoal ndestroyinghePlaintiffs adtheDefendants ot madePlaintiff-s rivatedataavailable,,ccessible,ndprovided he nformation oher. This ncludes

Improperly SubmittedEvidence.The entireBergDeclaration,including hisparagraph,is nvalidbecauseheCourtmaynot consideranymaterials utside hepleadingsn rulingon aMotion o Dismiss nderRule 2(bX6). See, .g. ,Branch . Tunnell.14@gir .1994) quotingHal RoachStudios.nc.v. RichardFeiner Co. 896 F.2d1542 ,1555.19 9 thCi r .1990) ) .PrejudicialEvidence[FRE 4031. Mr. Berg'sunfounded, nclear,andconclusory ssertionhatMrs. Taitzwished o"destroy"Plaintiffs spreiudicial, ndsuch

n Sustained.n Overruled.

t t



18/19

I2

1+5o78O

l 0l l1 2l 3l 4l 5l 61 7l 8l c )202 l22a aL )

2425

2728

Daylight. prejudiceoutweighsanyprobative alue hisevidencemighthave.Improper Evidenceof aWrong IFRB 404(bxl)1.Mr. Berg'sunfounded,unclear, ndconclusoryassertionhatMrs. Taitzwished o "destroy"Plaintiffsconstitutesinadmissiblevidencesubmitted in order oshow hat on a particularoccasionhepersonactedin accordance ith" aparticular rait.Lack of PersonalKnowledgeIFRE 6021;Lack ofFoundat ion FRE 9011.There s no foundation oestablishhatMr. Berghaspersonal nowledgeofDCIS'sbusiness.Improper LegalConc lus ionFRE7011.This estimonyexpresseslegalconclusion nd husis not"helpful o a clearunderstandingf thewitnesses'estimony rthe determination f a factin issue."

l 8



19/19

I2345b

789

l 0l 1t 2l 3l 4l 5l 61 7l 8l 9202 122L- )

2425

2728

Dated:December.2011 By:

Respectfuly submitted,PRYOR CASHMAN LLP

/s/ Michael J. NiborskiMichael . NiborskiTomJ.FerberRossM. BagleyAttorneys or DefendantDaylightChemicalnformation ystems,nc.


liberi v taitz (c.d. ca) - 443 - objection re: motion to dismiss case 412[recap] (objection to...

Documents