added to the manuscript are illegible and as such the exhibit
should be excluded. Hill is not relying on the handwritten notes
in the manuscript. Accordingly, there was no occasion for Hill
to have to properly authenticate the handwritten notes as Snitzer
argues. For the above reasons, Snitzer's motion to exclude the
marked up Hill manuscript is denied.
In it's case for derivation, Hill relies on exhibit 2058 as
a comparison between the introduction of Hill's manuscript and
the insert prepared by Elias Snitzer for the introduction to
Volume 23 of the Review. Hill relies on this document to
demonstrate the similarities between the two documents, in
support of its derivation case, e.g. that Snitzer had read the
Hill manuscript prior to drafting the insert to the volume 23
introduction contrary to Dr. Snitzer's allegations that he had
not read or received the Hill manuscript. Snitzer objects to
this evidence, since 1) the exhibit has not been authenticated;
2) no witness has testified to having personal knowledge of the
drafting or highlighting of the document; and 3) it is
irrelevant.
we find that the comparison is relevant to the issues
raised by Hill in its case for derivation. Furthermore, we find
it unnecessary for a witness to testify as to the drafting,
highlighting or general preparation of Hill exhibit 2058. Here,
Hill has explained what the document shows. The trier of fact
62
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007