New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Party’s Statements on Its Own Website Are Business Records and Admissions

Download PDF

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:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice