paint-brush
Google’s Embedded Hearsay Objections Are Meritlessby@legalpdf
518 reads
518 reads

Google’s Embedded Hearsay Objections Are Meritless

by Legal PDF: Tech Court CasesAugust 14th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

At trial, Google and Plaintiffs reserved generalized objections to embedded hearsay in more than 100 exhibits otherwise admitted into evidence.
featured image -  Google’s Embedded Hearsay Objections Are Meritless
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

United States of America v. Google LLC., Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 36 of 37.

XI. GOOGLE’S EMBEDDED HEARSAY OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS

1345. At trial, Google and Plaintiffs reserved generalized objections to embedded hearsay in more than 100 exhibits otherwise admitted into evidence. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact have cited approximately 90 exhibits that Plaintiffs understand are subject to Google’s generalized objection.[17] Google’s counsel has indicated that Google plans to specify its particularized objections to Plaintiffs’ use of these documents after reviewing Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact. Tr. 10229:4–10230:12.


Accordingly, to meaningfully respond to Google’s objections, Plaintiffs await Google’s particularized objection to these exhibits (to the extent those objections remain). Similarly, Plaintiffs reserve the right to renew their own objections to Google’s exhibits after reviewing Google’s post-trial filings.
























Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case retrieved on April 30, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.

[17] Plaintiffs’ review identified the following exhibits: UPX0014, UPX0061, UPX0081, UPX0094, UPX0105, UPX0107, UPX0126, UPX0135, UPX0164, UPX0172, UPX0183, UPX0236, UPX0244, UPX0279, UPX0290, UPX0305, UPX0321, UPX0482, UPX0495, UPX0511, UPX0536, UPX0556, UPX0557, UPX0558, UPX0567, UPX0574, UPX0605, UPX0620, UPX0622, UPX0627, UPX0628, UPX0640, UPX0654, UPX0656, UPX0658, UPX0663, UPX0664, UPX0666, UPX0667, UPX0669, UPX0671, UPX0676, UPX0677, UPX0678, UPX0687, UPX0690, UPX0692, UPX0716, UPX0720, UPX0736, UPX0751, UPX0787, UPX0798, UPX0829, UPX0832, UPX0848, UPX0851, UPX0898, UPX0914, UPX0920, UPX0921, UPX0940, UPX0955, UPX0964, UPX0967, UPX0979, UPX0982, UPX0991, UPX0997, UPX1015, UPX1017, UPX1018, UPX1019, UPX1020, UPX1024, UPX1032, UPX1033, UPX1034, UPX1035, UPX1036, UPX1038, UPX1062, UPX1064, UPX1070, UPX1086, UPX1102, UPX1125, UPX1130, UPX2106, UPX2143, UPX8091.