exhibit 2 - SAP Lawsuit Portal

Recommendations

Info

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. California. A & M RECORDS, INC., et al, Plaintiff(s), v. NAPSTER, INC., Defendant(s). Jerry LEIBER, individually and doing business as Jerry Leiber Music, et al, Plaintiff(s), v. NAPSTER, INC., Defendant(s). No. C9905183MHP, C000074MHP. Aug. 10, 2000. Named Expert: Jay, Fine, Fader, Hall, Lessig, Tygar MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE ADMISSIB- ILITY OF EXPERT REPORTS PATEL, Chief J. Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document875-1 Filed09/16/10 Page2 of 11 Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 1170106 (N.D.Cal.) (Cite as: 2000 WL 1170106 (N.D.Cal.)) *1 On July 3, 2000, in conjunction with its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, defendant Napster, Inc. (“Napster”) filed a motion to exclude the reports of plaintiffs' experts, Dr. E. Deborah Jay (“Jay Report”) and Michael Fine (“Fine Report”). Defendant objected separately to the expert report of Dr. David J. Teece (“Teece Report”). Plaintiffs filed a brief opposing the exclusion of the Jay and Fine Reports on July 13, 2000. Plaintiffs also objected to three of defendant's expert reports-those of Dr. Peter S. Fader, Dr. Robert Hall, Professor Lawrence Lessig, and Dr. J.D. Tygar (“Fader Report,” “Hall Report,” “Lessig Report,” and “Tygar Report,” respectively). Plaintiffs request the exclusion of the first three reports in their entirety and object to certain portions of the Tygar Report. After considering the parties' arguments, and for the reasons set forth below, this court now enters the following memorandum and order. LEGAL STANDARD I. Federal Rules of Evidence Page 1 Both the relevant case law and the parties' briefs make reference to three Federal Rules of Evidence- Rules 104, 403, and 702. Rule 104, governing general questions of admissibility, states: Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b) [pertaining to conditional admissions]. In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence, except those with respect to privileges. The trial judge initially must determine if the expert is proposing to testify to scientific or other specialized knowledge that “will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phamaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Rule 403 provides that, “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Rule 702 applies to testimony by experts and states that: © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. In its landmark Daubert opinion, the Supreme Court held that Rule 702 does not embody the requirement that an expert opinion is inadmissible un-
less it is “ ‘generally accepted’ as reliable in the relevant scientific community.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 584 (rejecting the test articulated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923)); see id. at 597. II. Daubert Gatekeeping Obligations *2 In Daubert, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence-particularly Rule 702give the trial court the duty of ensuring that expert testimony is “relevant to the task at hand” and has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597. To determine the relevance and reliability of scientific evidence, the Daubert Court said, the trial judge must undertake a flexible inquiry, focusing on the principles and methodology used, rather than the conclusions reached. See id. at 594-95. Several factors may bear on a judge's gatekeeping determination. These factors, include, but are not limited to, whether (1) the “theory or technique ... can be (and has been tested);” (2) the theory or technique “has been subjected to peer review and publication;” (3) the technique has a “known or potential rate of error;” (4) there are “standards controlling the technique's operation;” and (5) the theory or technique enjoys “general acceptance” within a “relevant scientific community.” Id. at 592-94. The Supreme Court emphasized that it did not intend to create a “definitive checklist or test.” Id. at 594; Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). In Kumho Tire, the Supreme Court extended Daubert principles to the testimony of engineers and other technical experts who are not scientists. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 141. It held that the gatekeeping obligation Daubert imposed on trial courts applies to all expert testimony. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 147. DISCUSSION Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document875-1 Filed09/16/10 Page3 of 11 Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 1170106 (N.D.Cal.) (Cite as: 2000 WL 1170106 (N.D.Cal.)) I. Defendant's Objections A. Jay Report © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 2 Dr. E. Deborah Jay is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Field Research Corporation, which plaintiffs retained “to conduct a survey with a random sample of college and university students in order to identify persons who use Napster to download music.” Jay Rep. at 1. Jay focused exclusively on college students because journalistic articles discussed college students using Napster. See Heather Mewes Dec., Exh. A (Jay Dep.) at 18:4-12, 22:2-13. The survey purported to track the reasons survey respondents used Napster, see Jay Rep. at 13-14, and the impact of Napster on their music purchases. See id. at 15-16. Defendant challenges the admissibility of the Jay Report on the ground that the survey was fatally under-inclusive because it only surveyed college or university students without obtaining data on the extent of Napster use outside colleges and universities. In her deposition, Jay admitted that she did not analyze non-college Napster use or have any information about it. See id. at 24:15-25, 25:1-2. She did not know the median age of Napster users. See id. at 17:25-18:1. Jay also stated that she could project her results to the universe of college users, but declined to project them to Napster users as a whole. See id. at 24:15-25:9. *3 Defendant contends that the proper universe for determining lost sales or injury to plaintiffs is all of plaintiffs' customers, not merely those who currently attend college or university. According to Napster, “if Napster users other than college students were increasing sales sufficient to offset any purported loss among college students ..., Plaintiffs' claim of harm would evaporate.” Def.'s Mot. to Exclude Jay Rep. at 2. In opposing defendant's motion to exclude the Jay Report, plaintiffs primarily argue that (1) defendant's criticisms of the report are invalid, and (2) objections to survey methodology affect the weight, rather than the admissibility of evidence. FN1 Ac-
Page 1 and 2: Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 060359)
Page 3: Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document875-1
Page 7 and 8: able standards. The Jay Report is p
Page 9 and 10: outside studies and media reports.
Page 11 and 12: 1952, at 81. The Lessig Report mere
Page 13 and 14: Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document875-1
Page 15 and 16: LEXSEE 2001 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 13919
Page 33 and 34: orphanage [*10] that had burnt down
Page 35 and 36: The required elements of access and
Page 53 and 54: kill Earl so as to inherit his lott
Page 55 and 56:
in Earl are not serious, and they b
Page 57 and 58:
LEXSEE 2006 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 38430
Page 59 and 60:
Specifically, Kaiser agreed to crea
Page 61 and 62:
Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document875-5
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
the sound discretion of the trial c
Page 79 and 80:
granted. Accordingly, the motion wi
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
PP 21-22.) Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Do
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
F.3d at 1192 n.6 (citing First Jers
Page 107 and 108:
show all

exhibit 2 - SAP Lawsuit Portal

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?