the evidence even assuming Hill's exhibits 2008, 2030, 2046,
Attachment I to 2046, Attachment II to 2046, 2057, 2059, and
Anderson Ex. 1024 to be admissible for purposes of demonstrating
diligence and an earlier reduction to practice.
Accordingly, Snitzer's motion with respect to Hill Ex. 2008,
2030, 2046, Attachment I to 2046, Attachment II to 2046, 20S7,
2059, and Anderson Ex. 1024 is dismissed as moot.
Snitzer moves to exclude the Snitzer facsimile allegedly
sent by Dr. Hill to Dr. Snitzer (Hill Ex. 2044, Attachment I to
204S, and references in Hill Ex. 2045 to such). Snitzer argues
that the fax is hearsay, it includes handwritten marks, has not
been properly authenticated, and no original is provided. Hill
does not offer the fax into evidence to prove the truth of the
matter asserted in the fax. Rather, Hill submits the fax into
evidence to demonstrate that Dr. Snitzer was interested in Dr.
Hill's work (Finding 69). Accordingly, the evidence is not
hearsay.
Snitzer also challenges the authenticity of the fax.
However, Hill testifies as to the authenticity of the fax, e.g.
that it was a fax sent by him to Dr. Snitzer (HR 6, 1 5). No
more is needed. Furthermore, the Federal Rules of Evidence allow
a party to provide a copy of a document. See FRE 1003
(duplicates admissible to the same extent as originals).
Accordingly, Snitzer's motion to exclude Hill exhibit 2044,
57
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007