Party’s Statements on Its Own Website Are Business Records and Admissions
CA, Inc. v. New Relic, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46438 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2015):
In this patent infringement action, plaintiff CA, Inc. ("CA") alleges that defendant New Relic, Inc. ("New Relic") has infringed three patents which deal with monitoring the performance of software applications, otherwise known as application [*2] performance management ("APM") software. See generally Compl. [DE 1]. New Relic asserted in its First Affirmative Defense that CA's three patents are invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability. See Answer to Compl. ¶ 62 [DE 8].
Presently before the Court is CA's motion for partial summary judgment seeking to strike New Relic's First Affirmative Defense as to two of the three patents at issue -- U.S. Patent No. 7,225,361 B2 ("the '361 Patent") and U.S. Patent No. 7,797,580 B2 ("the '580 Patent") -- and to estop New Relic from contesting the validity of those two patents. ***
Cirne is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Defendant New Relic. Id. ¶ 7.3
3 Here, and in multiple instances throughout its Rule 56.1 Counterstatement, New Relic responds to CA's statement of the facts by stating that the facts are "Undisputed" but that "New Relic objects to and asks the Court to disregard of strike" certain exhibits cited by CA to support its statement and/or certain facts contained within those exhibits. See, e.g., Def.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11, 27, 30, 33, 43, 45, 62, 67, 68. Where this occurs, the Court will consider the statement provided by CA as undisputed because New Relic's initial response in each instance is, in fact, "Undisputed." See Washington v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8884, 2009 WL 1585947, at *1 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2009) (taking the statement of relevant facts provided by the defendants [*8] "as true" where the plaintiffs initial response in each instance was "Admit, but deny to the extent the statement cites to inadmissible evidence" and finding that, in any event, the challenged evidence "would undoubtedly be admissible at trial"). Furthermore, the Court observes that, to the extent New Relic objects to CA's use of printed statements from New Relic's own website as exhibits -- which bear both a time-and-date stamp and URL, and which have been authenticated in a declaration by CA's counsel, see Decl. of Matthew K. Gates [DE 118] -- those documents are admissible in evidence. See In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 06-MD-1738, 2013 WL 504257, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2013) ("Statements on a website can be considered business records within the scope of Rule 803(6).") (citing Doctors Med. Ctr. of Modesto v. Global Excel Mgmt., Inc., No 08-CV-1231, 2009 WL 2500546, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2009) (concluding that statements on a party's website were admissible, despite hearsay objections, under the business records exception and as party admissions)); see also Langbord v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, No. CIV.A. 06-5315, 2011 WL 2621310, at *4 (E.D. Pa. July 5, 2011) (holding that "a 2007 printout from the Mint's website listing the 1933 Double Eagle as a circulating coin, is admissible as a statement of a party opponent, no matter what the Mint intended by posting the information.").
Share this article: