Case 3:07-cv-04913-SC
Document 40-2
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 1 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Richard E. Levine (SB #88729) LEVINE & BAKER LLP One Maritime Plaza, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-8177 Facsimile: (415) 391-8488 [email protected] Joseph V. Norvell (pro hac vice) Joseph T. Kucala (pro hac vice) Jay M. Burgett (pro hac vice) NORVELL IP LLC 1776 Ash Street Northfield, IL 60093 Telephone: (847) 809-2212 Facsimile: (312) 268-5063 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT TRENT JONES II, INC. ROBERT TRENT JONES LICENSING GROUP, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ROBERT TRENT JONES II, INC. and ROBERT TRENT JONES LICENSING GROUP, LLC Plaintiffs,
Case No. 07-CV-04913-SC [PROPOSED ORDER] REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Date: January 25, 2008 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge Samuel Conti
19
v.
20 21 22 23 24 25
GFSI, INC. d/b/a GEAR FOR SPORTS, INC. Defendant.
[PROPOSED ORDER]REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
Case 3:07-cv-04913-SC
Document 40-2
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 2 of 4
1 2 3 4 5
Plaintiffs, Robert Trent Jones II, Inc. and Robert Trent Jones Licensing Group, LLC, through their counsel, have submitted their Objections to Evidence Offered by Defendant in its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. These Objections are limited to the Declaration of Larry Graveel. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
6
Objection No. 1: Paragraph 9: The sentence "However, to accommodate RTJ2's request,
7
we ceased selling to these alleged `discount stores' when RTJ2 raised concerns." lacks proper
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
foundation. Court's Ruling: Sustained: _____ Overruled: _____ Objection No. 2: Paragraph 12: This paragraph lacks proper foundation and contains inadmissible hearsay. Court's Ruling: Sustained: _____ Overruled: _____ Objection No. 3: Paragraph 13: This paragraph lacks proper foundation and contains inadmissible hearsay. This paragraph also contains inadmissible hearsay from an unnamed
18
"corp. representative at Neiman Marcus."
19
Court's Ruling:
20 21 22 23 24 25
Sustained: _____ Overruled: _____
Objection No. 4: Paragraph 14: This paragraph lacks proper foundation and contains inadmissible hearsay. Court's Ruling: Sustained: _____ Overruled: _____
[PROPOSED ORDER]REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
2
Case 3:07-cv-04913-SC
Document 40-2
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4 5
Objection No. 5: Paragraph 15: This paragraph lacks proper foundation and contains inadmissible hearsay. Court's Ruling: Sustained: _____ Overruled: _____ Objection No. 6: Paragraph 16: This paragraph lacks proper foundation and contains
6
inadmissible hearsay.
7
Court's Ruling:
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Sustained: _____ Overruled: _____
Objection No. 7: Paragraph 17: The sentence "GFSI classifies The Golf Warehouse as a "Golf Specialty Store" because GFSI believes The Golf Warehouse is properly considered a Golf Specialty Store, not a `discount' or `Secondary-Market' store." is irrelevant. Court's Ruling: Sustained: _____ Overruled: _____ Objection No. 8: Paragraph 18: This paragraph lacks proper foundation and contains inadmissible hearsay. Court's Ruling: Sustained: _____ Overruled: _____
18 19
Objection No. 9: Paragraph 19: This paragraph lacks proper foundation.
20 21 22 23 24 25
Court's Ruling:
Sustained: _____ Overruled: _____
Objection No. 10: Paragraph 20: This paragraph lacks proper foundation and contains inadmissible hearsay. Court's Ruling: Sustained: _____
[PROPOSED ORDER]REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
3
Case 3:07-cv-04913-SC
Document 40-2
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 4 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Overruled: _____
Dated: _____________________
Entered: ___________________________ Senior Judge Samuel Conti U.S. District Court Judge
[PROPOSED ORDER]REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
4