Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524-1 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:13944

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages TABLE OF CONTENTS.......i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........ii-iv A. THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL B. MILLER, ESQ. IS INADMISSABLE.3-11 I. Michael B. Miller, Esquires Declaration is not signed by him; and is not signed under the Penalty of Perjury and therefore is Inadmissible.4-5 Millers Declaration proves the Plaintiffs position that Genuine Issues of Material Facts exist, therefore, Summary Judgment is Inappropriate..6-11

II.

B.

PLAINTIFFS OBJECT to the HEARSAY STATEMENTS and DOCUMENTS in the DECLARATION of MICHAEL B. MILLER, ESQUIRE...11-20 CONCLUSION,....21

C.

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524-1 Filed 05/11/12 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:13945

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s)

Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764, 121 S.Ct. 1801, 149 L.Ed.2d 983 (2001)...2 Beyene v. Coleman Security Servs, Inc., 854 F.2d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988).4, 10 Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980)..3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Blumberg v. Gates, No. CV 00- 05607, 2003 WL 22002739 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2003)....2 , 5 Cambridge Electronics Corp. v. MGA Electronics, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 313, 321 (C.D. Cal. 2004)...7 Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, No. C 04-02239 JSW, 2008 WL 3400340 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2008)....11 Jones v.Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004)....2, 5 Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 765, 778-779 (9th Cir. 2002)....3, 4, 10, 11, 13- 20 Ortiz-Lopez v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 2001).8 Pieszak v. Glendale Adventist Med. Ctr., 112 F. Supp. 2d 970, 984 n.13 (C.D. Cal. 2000)..11 Self-Ins. Inst. of America, Inc. v. Software and Info.Indus. Ass'n., 208 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2000).....7 Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001).8

ii

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524-1 Filed 05/11/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:13946

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Continued

FEDERAL STATUTES Page(s) 28 U.S.C. 1746.1, 2, 4, 5, 20

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Page(s) Rule 26(a)..7 Rule 26(e)..7 Rule 26(e)(1).7 Rule 37..7, 8 Rule 37(c)(1)7 Rule 56(c)(4)...3, 20 Rule 56(h).3 Rule 56(3).3 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE Page(s) Fed. R. Evid. 6023, 11, 14 Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)..11, 20

iii

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524-1 Filed 05/11/12 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:13947

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Continued FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE Page(s) Fed. R. Evid. 6023, 11, 14 Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)....11, 20 Fed. R. Evid. 80211, 15, 17, 20 Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)11, 20 NINTH CIRCUTI LOCAL RULE Page(s) Rule 37-1..8

iv

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:13923

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTERY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL B. MILLER, ESQUIRE Date of Hearing: May 21, 2012 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D

vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Plaintiffs by and through their undersigned Counsel, hereby object to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire [Miller] in support of the Reed Defendants Reply to their Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits A, through I attached thereto, on the following grounds: i. Michael B. Miller, Esquires Declaration does not meet the statutory requirements for unsworn Declarations outlined in 28 U.S.C. 1746

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:13924

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and therefore is inadmissible. See Blumberg v. Gates, No. CV 0005607, 2003 WL 22002739 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2003) (Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring that contentions in a Motion for Summary Judgment must be based on personal knowledge and the declarant set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, attested [to] under penalty of perjury that the contents of the motions or pleadings are true and correct.) quoting 28 U.S.C. 1746 (requiring all affidavits to be made on personal knowledge under penalty of perjury). ii. Michael B. Miller, Esquires Declaration is not signed by Mr. Miller, nor properly authenticated as to his knowledge of the statements asserted, Blumberg v. Gates, 2003WL 22002739, at *1(C.D. Cal.Aug.19, 2003) ("The probative force of a declaration subscribed under penalty of perjury derives from the signature of the declarant. Without the declarant's signature, a Declaration is completely robbed of any evidentiary force."); See also Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764, 121 S.Ct. 1801, 149 L.Ed.2d 983 (2001) (we read the requirement of a signature to indicate, as a signature requirement commonly does, and as it did in John Hancock's day, a name handwritten (or a mark hand placed).

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:13925

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

iii.

Michael B. Miller, Esquires Declaration is inadmissible because it is based on hearsay and double hearsay statements in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 765, 778-779 (9th Cir. 2002); Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980).

iv.

Michael B. Miller, Esquires Declaration is inadmissible as Mr. Miller does not have personal knowledge of the statements outlined as facts in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 602 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4); and

v.

The Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire was submitted in bad faith and therefore, Plaintiffs should be Awarded Attorney Fees and Costs, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(h).

A.

THE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL B. MILLER, ESQ. IS INADMISSABLE:

On May 7, 2012, the Reed Defendants filed the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. See Docket No. [DN] 519, 520, 521 and 522. When ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Trial Court can only consider admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(3); Orr v. Bank of America, NT &

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:13926

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SA, 285 F.3d 765, 773 (9th Cir. 2002). Documents must be authenticated or the Court will not consider them. Orr, 285 F.3d at 773. See also Fed. R. Evid. 901(a); hearsay documents and statements, offered for the truth of the matter, will not be considered by the Court, See Federal Rule of Evidence 802; Orr, 285 F.3d at 778779; and Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). In deciding a Summary Judgment Motion, failure to lay a foundation, authenticate documents, and lack of personal knowledge in Declarations, evidence submitted, will not be considered. Beyene v. Coleman Security Servs, Inc., 854 F. 2d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988); Orr, 285 F. 3d at 773-774, 777. I. Michael B. Miller, Esquires Declaration is not signed by him; and is not signed under the Penalty of Perjury and therefore is Inadmissible:

Unsworn Declarations must comply with 28 U.S.C. 1746 to be admissible. 28 U.S.C. 1746 states: Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:13927

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(1) If executed without the United States: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature). (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature). Millers Declaration is not signed, certified, verified, or stated under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct or anything close thereto in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1746. The Declaration of Miller is not signed by Miller, but instead his name was written on the signature line by some unknown individual who placed in parenthesis with permission. Thus, the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire is inadmissible. Blumberg v. Gates, No. CV 00-05607, 2003 WL 22002739 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2003) (Not selected for publication) (Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring that contentions in a Motion for Summary Judgment must be based on personal knowledge and the declarant set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, attested [to] under penalty of perjury that the contents of the motions or pleadings are true and correct.) quoting 28 U.S.C. 1746 (requiring all affidavits to be made on personal knowledge under penalty of perjury). For these reasons alone, the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire must not be considered by the Court.

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:13928

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

II.

Millers Declaration proves the Plaintiffs position that Genuine Issues of Material Facts exist, therefore, Summary Judgment is Inappropriate:

Should this Court decide to allow the incompliant Declaration of Michael Miller, Millers declaration does not assist the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs Objected and Requested to be Stricken, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 the Declarations of Lisa Simmons, Simmons Exhibits, and the Declaration of Lisa Policastro as these witnesses were not disclosed to Plaintiffs by the Reed Defendants in their Discovery Responses or Initial Disclosures. See the Request to Strike and Objections filed by Plaintiffs on April 20, 2012, DN 507 at pp. 2-6, A. In response thereto, Miller admits the Reed Defendants never disclosed Lisa Simmons, the Exhibits attached to Simmons Declaration or Lisa Policastro. See Millers Declaration at pp. 17-18, 17. In support thereof, Miller attaches as Exhibit A Accurints Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and references Exhibit A, Interrogatory Responses 1 and 2, which does not help them, as the only parties disclosed were Kevin Foley, Jennifer Jung and Linda Clark, no reference whatsoever to Lisa Simmons or Lisa Policastro or the documents attached to Lisa Simmons Declaration as Exhibits A, B and C. Miller also references the Reed Defendants response to Interrogatory number 8, claiming that virtually any employee of LexisNexis Risk Data
Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:13929

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Management, Inc. or other of the LexisNexis Defendants could have provided that testimony. As proven by Millers Exhibit A, Interrogatory Response No. 8 does not reflect this at all. What the Reed Defendants state as their Response to Interrogatory No, 8 are boilerplate objections and Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant states that the files containing search criteria used to run reports against the Accurint database in 2009 have not been deleted. [emphasis added]. Rule 26(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that litigants have a continuing duty to supplement or correct all interrogatory responses and requests for production if their prior responses are either incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1); See also Cambridge Electronics Corp., 227 F.R.D. at 321. Under Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is generally precluded from using evidence not disclosed as required under Rule 26(e)(1). See Cambridge Electronics Corp. v. MGA Electronics, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 313, 321 (C.D. Cal. 2004); Self-Ins. Inst. of America, Inc. v. Software and Info. Indus. Ass'n., 208 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Rule 37 provides that [i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a witness . . . as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness . . . to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The burden of

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:13930

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

demonstrating that the failure is substantially justified or harmless falls on the offending party. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001). As noted by the Ninth Circuit in Yeti, Rule 37 is intended to provide a strong inducement for disclosure, and a self-executing and automatic sanction for the failure to produce material during the discovery process. Id. at 1106 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 advisory committee's note (1993) and noting particularly wide latitude given to district courts to exclude evidence under this provision). Courts have upheld the striking of such evidence even when the litigants entire cause of action or defense has been precluded. Id. (citing Ortiz-Lopez v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 2001)). Nor is it necessary to show willful intent on the part of the offending party; exclusion is an appropriate remedy in the absence of bad faith or an explicit court order. See Yeti, 259 F.3d at 1106. Miller in his Declaration claims Philip J. Berg, Esquire did not meet and confer prior to filing Plaintiffs Objections to the Declarations of Lisa Simmons, Exhibits attached to Simmons Declaration and Lisa Policastro pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37-1. This simply is not the case. Mr. Berg submitted a detailed letter to Mr. McCabe and Mr. Miller on March 25, 2012 regarding the improper responses, failure to provide documents, and simply assert boilerplate objections. The

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:13931

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

morning after sending this letter, Mr. Berg, Mr. Miller and Irene Pertsovky from Mr. Millers office conducted a Meet and Confer regarding the discovery issues on April 4, 2012, but the issues were left unresolved. See the Declaration of Philip J. Berg [Berg Decl.] at pp. 23-24, 49, filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiffs objected and requested this Court to Strike the testimony and Exhibits provided by Neil Sankey pertaining to where he obtained Plaintiff Liberis Social Security number as the statements and documents were hearsay; that the documents were unauthenticated, that they lacked foundation, and Neil Sankey did not have any personal knowledge of the statements or documents because he obtained the documents from this Courts Docket in 2010 and 2011, and not in 2009 from where he claimed. Plaintiffs Objections and Request to Strike were further based on the fact that Neil Sankey had obtained the Accurint (Reed Defendants) Reports on Plaintiffs in March and April 2009, and immediately thereafter sent Emails containing Plaintiff Liberi and her spouses private data, including Social Security numbers in 2009, thus Neil Sankey obtained Liberis Social Security number from the consumer reports sold by the Reed Defendants to Neil Sankey on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi and her spouse, see DN 507 at pp. 7-10, I. In response thereto, Miller at pp. 10-11, 24-26 of his Declaration argues that Neil Sankey obtained Plaintiff Liberis Social Security number from documents filed by

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:13932

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Liberi in other Courts, that Mr. Sankey obtained directly from the Courts in which Liberi filed them and not from any of the Reed Defendants. In support thereof, Miller attaches Exhibits E and F. Exhibit F is a June 14, 2010 letter and Emergency Motion to Strike and Seal filings by Orly Taitz on June 10, 2010 to Judge Robreno in Pennsylvania, that Judge Robreno Ordered filed. See DN 122. Exhibit F is Taitzs June 10, 2010 filing, See DN 121, which further proves that the earliest date Neil Sankey obtained these unauthenticated documents was June 10, 2010, over a year after he accessed and obtained the Reports on Plaintiff Liberi and her husband from the Reed Defendants and over a year after Neil Sankey sent out his Emails containing Liberi and her husbands Social Security numbers and other private data, further substantiating Plaintiffs Objections and Request to Strike, DN 507, as Neil Sankeys statements and Exhibits (documents) were inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted; they lacked foundation and Neil Sankey did not have personal knowledge of the statements and documents. Beyene v. Coleman Security Servs, Inc., 854 F. 2d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988) (for purposes of Summary Judgment, attaching upon mere assertion that they were true and correct copies of Exhibits was insufficient to lay a foundation and authenticate the attached documents absent personal knowledge of the facts in the documents); See also Orr,

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

10

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:13933

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

285 F. 3d at 773-774, 777 (affidavit must lay a foundation to authenticate discovery documents). See Also Fed. R. Evid. 602, 801(c), 802 and 901(a). Millers Declaration supports Plaintiffs Request to Strike, Objections and Position as to why Summary Judgment must not be granted. See, e.g., Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, No. C 04-02239 JSW, 2008 WL 3400340, at *6 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2008) (noting defendant's introduction of new evidence "creates a dispute of fact" precluding summary judgment); Pieszak v. Glendale Adventist Med. Ctr., 112 F. Supp. 2d 970, 984 n.13 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (pointing out defendants' reply evidence "merely creates a genuine issue for trial."). As pointed out and explained in Plaintiffs Opposition to the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, their evidence is not admissible evidence and therefore, their Motion for Summary Judgment is unsupported by any competent evidence and must be Denied. B. PLAINTIFFS OBJECT to the HEARSAY STATEMENTS and DOCUMENTS in the DECLARATION of MICHAEL B. MILLER, ESQUIRE:

Miller Declaration, p. 2, 1, Miller claims to be admitted Pro Hac Vice in this case. Although, Mr. Miller applied Pro Hac Vice, See DN 457, to date, Plaintiffs are unable to locate an Order granting Mr. Millers application. Miller Declaration, pp. 2-3, 2, Mr. Miller first states that Mr. Berg refused to hold a Rule 26(f) Conference, See p. 2, 2 at line 24. On page 3 of this same
Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

11

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:13934

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

paragraph, Mr. Miller admits that Mr. Berg complied with the Conference, See line 4. Miller Declaration, pp. 8-9, 19, A true and correct copy of Mr. McCabes April 2 Response to Mr. Bergs March 26th letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Mr. McCabe first pointed out that the LexisNexis Defendants Responses included much more than just objections, and explained to Mr. Berg that he had simply overlooked the LexisNexis Defendants significant Substantive Response. Mr.

McCabe directed Mr. Berg to that information. Mr. McCabe also pointed out that, even before Plaintiffs had properly served Discovery, the LexisNexis Defendants had made clear that a Protective Order was required. Plaintiffs had agreed. But, Mr. McCabe noted, Plaintiffs had done nothing to resolve that well-taken objection even though the LexisNexis Defendants provided Mr. Berg with a draft Protective Order with which to work. Nonetheless, Mr. McCabe offered to discuss

alternative means of assuring confidentiality of and use limitations on responsive documents during our meet and confer call. Finally, Mr. McCabe noted that the LexisNexis Defendants expected Mr. Berg to comply with Local Rule 37-1 in any future meet and confer letters and insisted that he meet and confer as required by the Local Rules. Mr. McCabe also demanded the deposition dates for Plaintiffs depositions that we had been unsuccessfully seeking for several weeks, and requested a meet and confer on that issue. Plaintiffs object to this paragraph on

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

12

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:13935

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Here paragraph 19 lacks foundation. The Declaration cannot establish

Michael B. Miller Esquires personal knowledge as he did not draft, participate or send the letter in question, or the other information referenced. The events were supposedly involving James McCabe, Esquire who is located in California and not even the same state as Mr. Miller. Plaintiffs object to this paragraph and Exhibit D on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Similarly paragraph 19 makes a bare assertion that the attached Exhibit D is genuine by stating that a true and correct copy is attached of a document created by another person. The paragraph fails to lay a foundation because it does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of genuineness. This paragraph and Exhibit D have not been authenticated and are inadmissible. Plaintiffs further object to this paragraph and Exhibit D on the ground that it constitutes

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

13

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:13936

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiffs further object to Paragraph 19 as it lacks foundation. The

Declaration cannot establish Michael B. Miller, Esquires personal knowledge of the information referenced in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 602. Miller Declaration, p. 10, 22 Plaintiffs have never sought any depositions in this case, including depositions of a party pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). Plaintiffs also have never sought additional discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d). Plaintiffs object on the basis it assumes facts not in evidence and misstates the events regarding this issue. Plaintiffs cant depose individuals they are unaware of. The Reed Defendants, other than a few responses by Accurint, have refused to properly Respond to Plaintiffs Discovery, and refused to turn over any documents pending a Protective Order, that the Reed Defendants are requesting. Until Plaintiffs receive Responses to the Discovery in which they have already served, Plaintiffs are unaware of what further Discovery to request. Miller Declaration, p. 11, 25, lines 2-23 beginning with Pages 15-23 and 18-23 and ending with Court Records, not from the LexisNexis Defendants. Plaintiffs object to this paragraph on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

14

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:13937

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Here paragraph 25 lacks foundation. The Declaration cannot establish

Michael B. Miller, Esquires personal knowledge as to any of the statements or documents referenced in Exhibit E or F. The documents referenced in

Exhibits E and F purport to be a Declaration from Lisa Liberi that is unauthenticated, and fails to even show any type of Court in which it was supposedly filed. The second document referenced by Mr. Miller, purports to be a Bankruptcy filing that is sealed and not available to the public. Mr. Miller does not have personal knowledge of either of these documents or the statements referenced regarding them. Plaintiffs object to this paragraph and the referenced documents on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Similarly paragraph 25 makes a bare assertion that the attached Exhibits E and F are genuine by stating that true and correct copies are attached of documents created and referenced by another person. The paragraph fails to lay a foundation because it does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

15

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:13938

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

genuineness. This paragraph, the documents referenced therein and Exhibits E and F have not been authenticated and are inadmissible. Plaintiffs further object to this paragraph and Exhibits E and F on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Moreover, Mr. Miller repeats statements made by Neil Sankey that Plaintiffs objected to, See DN 507. Miller does not have any personal knowledge of the statements made by Neil Sankey or the truth to the statements made by Neil Sankey. Therefore, this entire paragraph, beginning on page 11, line 2 through lines 28 is inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Miller Declaration, p. 12, 27, Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 8 to Ms. Ostellas declaration described above. According to Ms. Ostellas declaration, Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a transcript of Neil Sankeys interview on something called the Plains Radio Network on May 28, 2009. In that interview, Mr. Sankey expressly refers to the fact, later testified to in his Declaration that he obtained the so called personal identifying information at issue in this case from the sort of Court records described above.

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

16

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:13939

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Here paragraph 25 lacks foundation.

The declaration cannot establish

Michael B. Miller, Esquires personal knowledge as to any of the Statements referenced in Exhibit H. Mr. Miller misquotes what Exhibit H states. No where in the radio transcript does Neil Sankey claim to obtain Liberis private personal information from a San Bernardino Court. Mr. Miller does not have knowledge of either the radio show or the transcript. The transcript attached as Exhibit H is a partial. The entire radio show is on file with the Court in CD format. Plaintiffs object to this paragraph and Exhibit H in their entirety on the

ground that they constitute inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Similarly paragraph 27 makes a bare assertion that the attached Exhibit H is genuine by stating that true and correct copy is attached of a document created and referenced by another person. The paragraph fails to lay a foundation because it does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of genuineness. Miller does not have any personal knowledge of the statements in the May 28, 2009 Radio Show by Neil Sankey. Therefore, this entire paragraph is

inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

17

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:13940

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Miller Declaration, page 12, 29, lines 20-28, page 13, lines 1-7 and Exhibits I through K. Mr. Bergs declaration is, at best, highly misleading. I attach as Exhibits I K true and correct copies of the documents included by Mr. Berg as his Exhibits 9-11, respectively. To reduce the materials submitted on this motion, Exhibit J includes only the first five pages of Mr. Bergs Exhibit 10. As can be seen, each of those documents includes already redacted social security numbers (with the last four digits of each social security number replaced by XXXX), not full social security numbers as stated by Mr. Berg. This is

consistent with Mr. Sankeys declaration and the other evidence in this case that the Sankey Defendants were not able to obtain full social security numbers through the LexisNexis Defendants and IRBSearch, LLC and that no defendant obtained plaintiffs full social security numbers from the LexisNexis Defendants. (We have redacted in black pen from Exhibits I K only that portion of the redacted social security number that includes actual numbers. These exhibits differ from Mr. Bergs exhibits in that we have not crossed out the XXXX portion of the data that is included in the report itself. As can be seen, the reports do not contain full social security numbers.)

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

18

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:13941

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Here paragraph 29 lacks foundation.

The Declaration cannot establish

Michael B. Miller, Esquires personal knowledge as to any of the Statements or documents referenced in Exhibits I through K. The documents referenced in Exhibits I through K purport to be reports run on Lisa Liberi by Neil Sankey that he obtained from LexisNexis and IRBSearch, LLC that are unauthenticated, and fails to show where they came from or how Mr. Miller has any such knowledge. In fact, Mr. Millers Declaration refutes the testimony provided with their Summary Judgment Motion and the basis for their Summary Judgment Motion, in that in the Reed Defendants Motion, Lisa Simmons and Neil Sankey claimed that none of the Sankey Defendants had accounts with any of the Lexis Defendants and that none of the Sankey Defendants obtained any information directly from any of the Sankey Defendants. Mr. Miller does not have knowledge of either of these documents or the statements referenced regarding them. Plaintiffs object to this paragraph and the referenced documents on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). Similarly paragraph 29 makes a bare assertion that the attached Exhibits I through K are genuine by stating that true and correct copies are attached of reports from LexisNexis and IRBSearch, LLC. The paragraph fails to lay a

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

19

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:13942

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

foundation because it does not provide the relevant underlying documents or other necessary information and thus, fails to provide prima facie evidence of genuineness. This paragraph, the documents referenced therein and Exhibits I through K have not been authenticated and are inadmissible. Plaintiffs further object to this paragraph and Exhibits I through K on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 802, in that it is offered for the truth of the matters asserted in it. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778-779; Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F. 2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1980). For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Declaration of Michael B. Miller is inadmissible and must not be considered. C. CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire must not be considered as it is unsigned and fails to comply with 28 U.S.C. 1746; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4); Fed. R. Evid. 602, 801(c), 802, 910(a), as it contains unauthenticated documents, hearsay and double hearsay documents and statements, and Mr. Miller lacks foundation; lacks personal knowledge; Michael B. Miller, Esq.s Declaration is inadmissible. Plaintiffs further object to any

references to Mr. Millers Declaration as support to the Reed Defendants Objections, Reply to Plaintiffs Disputed Facts, and/or Reply to their Motion for

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

20

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524 Filed 05/11/12 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:13943

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Summary Judgment.

Plaintiffs respectfully Request this Court to Sustain the

above Objections and Strike the Evidence referenced above. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 11, 2012

/s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

21

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524-2 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:13948

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION : : CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: LISA LIBERI, et al, : Plaintiffs, : 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) : : : PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF vs. : : SERVICE ORLY TAITZ, et al, : : : Defendants. :
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire was served through the ECF filing system and/or mail as indicated below, this 11th day of May 2012 upon the following:

James F McCabe, Esquire Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Email: jmccabe@mofo.com Attorney for Defendants: Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Group, Inc.; LexisNexis, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis Seisint, Inc.; LexisNexis Choicepoint, Inc.

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Certificate of Service - Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 524-2 Filed 05/11/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:13949

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2

Marc Steven Colen, Esq. Law Offices of Marc Steven Colen 5737 Kanan Road, Ste. 347 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Email: mcolen@colenlaw.com Served via the ECF Filing System Attorney for Defendants: Todd Sankey; and The Sankey Firm, Inc. Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Served via the ECF Filing System Attorney for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. Kim Schumann, Esquire Jeffrey P. Cunningham, Esquire Peter Cook, Esquire SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP 3100 Bristol Street, Suite 400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Email: pcookA@srrlawfirm.com Served via the ECF Filing System Attorney for Defendants Orly Taitz; Orly Taitz, Inc.; and Law Offices of Orly Taitz

/s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Certificate of Service - Objections to the Declaration of Michael B. Miller, Esquire