Attachment I to 2045, and references in Hill exhibit 2045 to
such, is denied. With respect to Dr. Hill's testimony concerning
what the fax demonstrates, e.g. what the contents of the fax
mean, we have not considered those statements, since party Hill
apparently does not rely upon them to prove conception. However,
those statements made by Dr. Hill regarding his recollection of
sending the fax are admissible.
Snitzer moves to exclude the April 1992 Cooperman letter and
references thereto (Hill Ex. 2016, paragraph 3; Attachment I to
2016; Hill Ex. 2045, paragraphs referring to Attachment II of
2045, and Attachment II to 2045). Hill has failed to
sufficiently address Snitzer's argument that Cooperman has failed
to demonstrate that the letter falls within the business record
exception. Accordingly, the letter is excluded. However,
admissible is the statement made by Hill that he received the
letter from Cooperman and the statement from Cooperman that the
letter was from her to Dr. Hill.
Snitzer moves to exclude the May 1999 Cooperman letter and
references thereto (Attachment VII to 2045 and portions of 2045),
Hill fails to demonstrate that the May 1999 letter falls under a
hearsay exception. Accordingly, the letter is excluded. Hill's
declaration regarding the content of the letter has also not been
considered. However, statements made by Hill that he received
the letter from Cooperman are admissible. Furthermore, paragraph
58
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007