Mickey Chandler's SpamSuite

e360 Objects to the Spamhaus Supplemental brief on grounds of length and because the text relies on a declaration from Steve Linford and is therefore inadmissable hearsay.

=========================

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

E360INSIGHT, LLC, and
DAVID LINHARDT, an individual
Plaintiffs,

v.

THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT,
Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiffs, e360Insight, LLC and David Linhardt (collectively Plaintiffs), by and through their attorneys, Synergy Law Group, LLC, object to the Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel filed be The Spamhaus Project, aka The Spamhaus Project Ltd., (Defendant) as follows:

1. On June 14, 2007, this Court entered an Order directing both parties to file supplemental briefs regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, limiting this briefing to two pages. (Docket # 102).

2. Pursuant to this Courts Order, Plaintiffs filed their two page supplemental brief on June 21, 2007.

3. On June 28, 2007, in violation of this Court’s Order, Defendant filed a five page supplemental brief.

4. Defendant’s supplemental brief should be stricken for failing to comply with this Court’s Order for this reason alone.

5. Defendant’s supplemental brief relies entirely on a declaration by Steve Linford that is based on inadmissible hearsay. Specifically, the Linford Declaration, at ¶ 1 states, alternatively, without any further direction, that it is based either on personal knowledge or “on the basis of information obtained from various sources…” (See Declaration of Steve Linford attached to Defendant’s supplemental memorandum. (Docket # 107))

6. Based on the contents of the Linford Declaration, only ¶4 can be unequivocally ascertained as within Mr. Linford’s personal knowledge. The remainder of the Linford Declaration is, or because of the lack of foundational facts contained in the Linford Declaration might, be inadmissible hearsay.

7. Statements based on hearsay are inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 802. Defendant’s supplemental memorandum, which is premised entirely on the Linford Declaration, should thus be stricken.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that this Court strike Defendant’s supplemental brief and for any other relief that this Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

E360Insight, LLC. and David Linhardt

By: /s/ Daniel J. Peters
One of Their Attorneys

Bartley J. Loethen (6225484)
Joseph L. Kish (6197916)
Daniel J. Peters (6272859)
Synergy Law Group, LLC
730 West Randolph, 6th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Telephone: (312) 454-0015
Facsimile: (312) 454-0261

Attachment	Date	Size
MotCompelReduxE360Obj.pdf	06/28/09 1:05 pm	10.51 KB