Lexisnexis Defendants' Reply To Plaintiffs Disputed Facts Doc 516

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 78 Page ID #:13415
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 26 27 28
JAMES F. McCABE (CA SBN 104686) JMcCabe@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 MICHAEL B. MILLER (Pro Hac Vice) MBMiller@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10104-0050 Telephone: 212.468.8009 Facsimile: 212.468.7900 Attorneys for Reed Elsevier Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ORLY TAITZ, et al., Defendants. Case No. CV11-00485 AG (AJWx) LEXISNEXIS DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF GENUINE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACTS Honorable Judge Andrew J. Guilford Date: May 21, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept: 10 D
LEXISNEXIS DEFS. RESPONSE TO PLS. STATEMENT OF GENUINE DISPUTES CASE NO. CV11-00485 AG (AJWX) sf-3137781
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 26 27 28
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Defendants Reed Elsevier Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., Lexis Nexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group, Inc. (collectively, the LexisNexis Defendants hereby submit their Response to Plaintiffs Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Facts (Statement of Genuine Disputes), filed along with Plaintiffs Opposition to the LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Docket Nos. 500, 501.) Plaintiffs have not created any trial issues of material fact with the purportedly cited evidence in their Statement of Genuine Disputes. As discussed in LexisNexis Defendants Evidentiary Objections and Motions to Strike, filed herewith, Plaintiffs have failed to support the argument in their Opposition with any competent evidence. To the extent that plaintiffs have cited any material in their Statement of Genuine Disputes, the cited material is either irrelevant to the particular fact and therefore cannot create a trial issue of material fact or is nothing more than a citation to self-serving and inadmissible declarations or motions which are not themselves evidence. LEXISNEXIS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS GENUINE ISSUES LexisNexis will briefly respond below to the individual genuine disputes proffered by Plaintiffs. For the convenience of the Court, LexisNexis Defendants have restated each of the purportedly genuine disputes, listed in the left columns, and Plaintiffs purported evidence, listed in the right columns. Following each, LexisNexis Defendants sets out a brief response thereto.
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 26 27 28
1. Subsidiaries of Reed Elsevier Inc. are leading providers of global information driven services and solutions bearing the LexisNexis brand. One of the entities that Plaintiffs named as a Defendant in this case is LexisNexis Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrogatory No.s [Interrog.] 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, Request for Production [RFP] No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 1: This fact is undisputed. The face of Plaintiffs own complaint establishes that Plaintiffs have named LexisNexis Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint as a defendant in this matter. Nor does the material cited by Plaintiffs relate to, let alone dispute, the general nature of Reed Elsevier Inc.s business or the fact that it has subsidiaries. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate solely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Plaintiffs Request to Strike and Evidentiary Objections to the Evidence Submitted in Support of the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Opposition to Request to Strike). The cited discoveryrelated challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.)
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 26 27 28
2. There is no corporation known as LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 25-27, 54-57.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 2: This fact is undisputed. Plaintiffs have not cited any evidence that establishes the existence of a company named LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint. To the extent that Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges, those challenges are unrelated to the stated fact and have been dealt with by LexisNexis separately in their Opposition to Request to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5.) Plaintiffs reliance on the Berg Declaration is also futile. (See Berg Decl. 25-27.) The cited material relates to Exhibit 16 to the Berg Declaration, which is an August 5, 2011 email from LexisNexis Defendants counsel to Plaintiffs counsel explaining that Plaintiffs have named as defendants several nonexistent entities: LexisNexis Seisint, Inc. appears to be a misnomer for the corporation formerly known as Seisint, Inc. (Berg Decl. 26 & Ex. 16.) Thus, rather than create a genuine dispute, the Berg Declaration and Exhibit 16 thereto support the stated fact. 3. However, a company then known as DISPUTED Seisint Inc., ultimately owned by Reed Elsevier Inc., in 2009 operated a RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., database from which Accurint pp. 25-27, 54-57 branded reports were prepared.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 3: This fact is undisputed. Plaintiffs have not cited any evidence that challenges that Seisint, Inc. was the company responsible for operating Accurint in 2009. To the extent that
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 26 27 28
Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges, those challenges are unrelated to the stated fact and have been dealt with by LexisNexis separately in their Opposition to Request to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5.) Plaintiffs reliance on the Berg Declaration is also futile. (See Berg Decl. 25-27.) The cited material relates to Exhibit 16 to the Berg Declaration, which is an August 5, 2011 email from LexisNexis Defendants counsel to Plaintiffs counsel explaining that Until January 1, 2010, the Accurint operations (including database maintenance and report preparation) were conducted by Seisint, Inc., a corporation that has since changed its name to LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. (Berg Decl. 26 & Ex. 16.) Thus, rather than create a genuine dispute, the Berg Declaration and Exhibit 16 thereto support the stated fact. 4. That company is currently known as LexisNexis Risk Data Management, Inc. (LNRDMI). DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 25-27, 54-57
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 4: This fact is undisputed. Plaintiffs have not cited any evidence that challenges that Seisint, Inc. was the company responsible for operating Accurint in 2009. To the extent that Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges, those challenges are unrelated to the stated fact and have been dealt with by LexisNexis separately in their Opposition to Request to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5.) Plaintiffs reliance on the Berg Declaration is also futile. (See Berg Decl. 25-27.) The cited material relates to Exhibit 16 to the Berg Declaration, which is an August 5, 2011 email from LexisNexis Defendants counsel to Plaintiffs counsel explaining that Until January 1, 2010, the Accurint operations
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 26 27 28
(including database maintenance and report preparation) were conducted by Seisint, Inc., a corporation that has since changed its name to LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. (Berg Decl. 26 & Ex. 16.) Thus, rather than create a genuine dispute, the Berg Declaration and Exhibit 16 thereto support the stated fact. 5. In 2009, LNRDMIs flagship product DISPUTED was called Accurint, a suite of online information products. RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19,
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 5: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate solely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6.)
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 26 27 28
6. Reports and services bearing the Accurint brand differed in the types of information they contained, but all Accurint- branded reports were prepared from information housed in the Accurint database.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 6: This fact is undisputed. Plaintiffs have not cited any evidence that relates to, let alone disputes, the stated fact. To the extent that Plaintiffs citations relate solely to their discovery-related challenges, those challenges are unrelated to the stated fact and have been dealt with by LexisNexis separately in their Opposition to Request to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) 7. The Accurint database is currently owned and operated by a company known as LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 25-27, 54-57.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 7: This fact is undisputed. Plaintiffs have not cited any evidence that challenges that Seisint, Inc. was the company responsible for operating Accurint in 2009. To the extent that Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges, those
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 26 27 28
challenges are unrelated to the stated fact and have been dealt with by LexisNexis separately in their Opposition to Request to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5.) Plaintiffs reliance on the Berg Declaration is also futile. (See Berg Decl. 25-27.) The cited material relates to Exhibit 16 to the Berg Declaration, which is an August 5, 2011 email from LexisNexis Defendants counsel to Plaintiffs counsel explaining that Since January 1, 2010, LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. has operated the Accurint business. (Berg Decl. 26 & Ex. 16.) Thus, rather than create a genuine dispute, the Berg Declaration and Exhibit 16 thereto support the stated fact.
8. The Accurint products are known DISPUTED primarily as tools for locating persons, verifying identity, and detecting RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., fraud. pp. 2-3, 5-14, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 26-32, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 8: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the
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 26 27 28
substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) Furthermore, to the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it has nothing to do with the asserted fact and therefore cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not provide any information about the primary purposes for which Accurint products are used or known for. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) 9. Accurints subscription customers include many law enforcement agencies, debt collectors, package delivery services and law firms, among others. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 9: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.)
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 26 27 28
10.Accurint products contain primarily public record and commercially available information about individuals assembled from a large number of sources.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45,Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283 Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 7-9, and Exs. 1, 2 and 3, pp. 24-131; and Liberi Decl., p. 6, 14-15 and Exhibit A, pp. 11-37.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 10: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it has nothing to do with the asserted fact and therefore cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9, 10, 11.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not describe the various sources from which the public information is assembled. (See Berg Decl. Exs. 9, 11; see also Berg. Decl. Ex. 10 (noting that the report is comprised of Public Records and commercially available data sources).)
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 26 27 28
Additionally, Plaintiffs own complaint admits that the LexisNexis Defendants product, at issue in this case, contains information from a variety of sources, including obtained from Governmental, State and other entities. (First Amended Complaint (FAC) 145.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declaration of Lisa Liberi is futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 6.) 11.The Accurint database contains information from a wide variety of sources, such as telephone directory listings, real property records, UCC and secretary of state filings, professional licenses, selected court filings, and credit header data. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 15-16, 35-36; B. Liberi Decl., p. 7-9, 16, 18-21; L. Ostella Decl., p. 11, 20-21; and Dr. Ostella Decl., pp. 6-7, 18-21.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 11: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it has nothing to do with the asserted fact and therefore cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl.
10
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 26 27 28
Exs. 9-11.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not describe the various sources from which the public information is assembled. (See Berg Decl. Exs. 9-11.) In fact, Plaintiffs own complaint admits that the LexisNexis Defendants product, at issue in this case, contains information from a variety of sources, including obtained from Governmental, State and other entities. (FAC 145.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declarations of Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella is futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 7-9, 15-16, 18-21; Ostella Decl. 6-7.) 12.The latter consists of files, usually prepared by credit bureaus, that provide information such as individual names, name variants, current and former addresses and social security numbers that are displayed only in truncated form other than to a limited number of qualified customers. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 15-16 7-9, 35-36 and Exs. 1, 2 and 3, pp. 24-131; Liberi Decl., p. 6, 8, 14-15, 20; Exhibit A, pp. 11-37; and Ostella, p. 6, 6
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 12: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations, relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the
11
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 26 27 28
substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does nothing to dispute the stated fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) On the contrary, Exhibit 10 to the Berg Declaration, a Comprehensive Report which the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi, supports the stated fact by listing Liberis individual names, name variants, current and former addresses. (Berg Decl. Ex. 10.) Contrary to the misleading redactions applied to the document attached as Exhibit 10 and Mr. Bergs statements about those redactions, the report does not disclose Liberis full social security numbers. Rather, the report discloses social security numbers in a truncated form by containing the notation XXXX as a substitute for the last four Social Security numbers. (See Declaration of Michael B. Miller in Further Support of the LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Miller Decl.) 29, Exs. I-K.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declarations of Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella is futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 6, 8; Ostella Decl. 6.)
13.Persons with access to the database can conduct a person search based on criteria such as name or address to retrieve all names in the database matching those criteria.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp.57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, pp. 175-180; Liberi Decl., p. 3, 7, and Ex. 1, pp. 24-28.
12
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 26 27 28
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 13: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations, relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does nothing to dispute the stated fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Ex. 9.) For example, Exhibit 9 to the Berg Declaration is a Person Search report which the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and does not disclose in any way the search criteria based on which the report was generated. (Berg Decl. Ex. 9.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declaration of Lisa Liberi is futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 3, Ex. 1 (duplicate of Ex. 9 to Berg Decl.).) 14.Users can then select a returned name DISPUTED to retrieve database information associated with that particular returned RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., name. pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24,pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, pp. 175-180; Liberi Decl., p. 3, 7, Ex. 1, pp. 24-28.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 14: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations, relate largely to their discovery-related
13
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 26 27 28
challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it has nothing to do with the disputed fact and therefore cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Ex. 9.) For example, Exhibit 9 to the Berg Declaration is a Person Search report which the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and does not disclose in any way the search criteria based on which the report was generated. (Berg Decl. Ex. 9.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declaration of Lisa Liberi is futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 3, Ex. 1 (duplicate of Exhibit 9 to Berg Decl.).) 15.The types of information returned varies depending on the type of Accurint report selected and the number of records associated with the selected name. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53;Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283;
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 15: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the
14
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 26 27 28
substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it has nothing to do with the asserted fact and therefore cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personalinformation reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not explain that the types of information returned varies depending on the type of Accurint report selected and do not disclose the number of records associated with the selected name. (See id.) 16.The Accurint database does not contain places of birth; mothers maiden names; . . . income; banking information; . . . credit cards . . .; insurance records; [or] medical records . . . DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; and Liberi Decl., pp. 8-9, 21
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 16: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to
15
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 26 27 28
Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the stated fact and therefore cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) For example, Exhibit 10 to the Berg Declaration is a document titled Comprehensive Report which the Sankey Defendants allegedly obtained on Lisa Liberi on March 16, 2009. (See Berg. Decl. 10.) The report provides no information regarding Liberis places of birth; mothers maiden names; . . . income; banking information; . . . credit cards . . .; insurance records; [or] medical records. (See Berg Decl. Ex. 10.) The report discloses the median household income for the particular neighborhood of each listed property address, but it does not disclose Lisa Liberis actual income. (See id.) Thus, rather than create a genuine issue, the Berg Declaration and Exhibit 10 attached thereto support the stated fact. Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declaration of Lisa Liberi is futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 8-9.) 17.The database contains customers [h]ome prices and values only to the extent that such information is found in publicly available documents, such as recorded mortgages or tax assessment rolls. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; and Liberi Decl., pp. 8-9, 21
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 17: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which
16
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 26 27 28
LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it has nothing to do with the asserted fact and therefore cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personalinformation reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband, Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not provide the sources of information regarding the listed home prices and values. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) Likewise, Plaintiffs reliance on the Liberi Declaration is futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 89.) 18.The database does not contain credit records including but not limited to loans with banks and other entities although the database can contain publicly filed security instruments, such as a deed of trust or a UCC-1, to the extent such instruments are available and include such information. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 14, 17-18, 8-9, 31, 39 and Exs. 2 and 3, pp. 30-131. LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 18: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which
17
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 26 27 28
LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the stated fact and therefore cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personalinformation reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not contain credit records including but not limited to loans with banks and other entities. (See Berg Dec. Ex. 9-11.) Thus, rather than create a genuine issue, the Berg Declaration and Exhibit 10 attached thereto support the stated fact. Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declaration of Lisa Liberi is futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 3-4, 14, 17-18.) 19.Paragraph 147 of the first amended UNDISPUTED complaint alleges that the Reed . . . Defendants own, possess and maintain consumer databases of consumer identity and credit information for use in generating and providing background and credit reports . . LexisNexis Defendants Response: Since Plaintiffs do not dispute the stated fact, no response is necessary.
18
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 26 27 28
20.This statement is untrue as to LNRDMI, and is largely untrue as to other entities owned directly or indirectly by Reed Elsevier Inc.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 14, 17-18, 8-9, 31, 39 and Exs. 2 and 3, pp. 30131; and Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19, Ex. A, pp. 11-37
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 20: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not establish, or even suggest, that LNRDMI maintains consumer databases of consumer identity and credit information for use in generating and providing background and credit reports. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it has nothing to do with the asserted fact and therefore cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband, Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not contain the kind of consumer and credit information that would render these credit reports. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.)
19
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 26 27 28
Likewise, Plaintiffs reliance on the Liberi Declaration is futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 8-9.) 21.None of the entities owned directly or DISPUTED indirectly by Reed Elsevier Inc. prepare credit reports. RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 29, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 61; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 1718, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39 and Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, and 15, pp. 30-131. 137-143, 148165, Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19 and Ex. A, pp. 11-37; Ostella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3 and Exs. 2-7, pp. 22-71
20
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 26 27 28
22.Some companies owned directly or indirectly by Reed Elsevier Inc., such as LexisNexis Risk Screening Solutions Inc. (LNRSSI), do prepare employment background screening reports.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 1718, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148-165; Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19 and Ex. A, pp. 11-37; Ostella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3 and Exs. 27, pp. 22-71.
23.However, all reports sold by companies owned directly or indirectly by Reed Elsevier Inc. that are expected or intended to be used for credit, insurance, or other eligibility determinations, are sold by entities other than LNRDMI and are prepared using databases other than the Accurint database.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 1718, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148-165; Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19; Ex. A, pp. 11-37; Ostella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3; Exs. 2-7, pp. 22-71
21
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 26 27 28
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute Nos. 21-23: These facts are undisputed. As explained further in the Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law on LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (See Docket No. 491-2), some companies owned directly or indirectly by Reed Elsevier Inc., such as LexisNexis Risk Screening Solutions Inc. do prepare employment background screening reports. (See Uncontroverted Fact No. 22 (Docket No. 491-2.).) However, all reports sold by companies owned directly or indirectly by Reed Elsevier Inc. that are expected or intended to be used for credit, insurance, or other eligibility determinations, are sold by entities other than LNRDMI and are prepared using databases other than the Accurint database. (See Uncontroverted Fact No. 23 (Docket No. 491-2).) The material cited by Plaintiffs does not establish or even suggest that an Accurint database is used to generate credit reports or that those reports are sold by LNRDMI. Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not dispute the stated facts in any way. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not provide any information that would ordinarily be found on a credit report. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) Notably, Plaintiffs attempt to mislead the Court when they state that the reports, attached as Exhibits 9, 10, and 11, to the Berg Declaration contain the consumers full social security numbers. (See, e.g., Berg Decl. 27, 28, 31; see
22
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 26 27 28
also Liberi Decl. 7-9.) Perpetuating that misleading statement, Mr. Berg, in his declaration, noted that he redacted social security numbers . . . for this filing and that the actual documents received from the Sankey Defendants were not redacted. (Berg Decl. 27 & n.1.) Indeed, in the attached reports, Plaintiffs blacked out the line next to the heading Social Security Number suggesting that the unredacted versions of these reports disclosed the full social security numbers. (See, e.g., Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11; see also Liberi Decl. Exs. 2, 3.) In fact, the unredacted versions of these reports do not contain the full social security numbers. Rather, the unredacted versions disclose the social security numbers in a truncated form by containing the notation XXXX as a substitute for the last four Social Security numbers. (See Miller Decl. Exs. I-K.) For the same reason, Plaintiffs citation to various correspondence by the Sankey Defendants to Bob Unruh and Orly Taitz around April 13, 2009, in which Neil Sankey discussed Lisa Liberis personal background and disclosed her purported full social security numbers, cannot create a genuine issue as to the stated facts. (See Berg Decl. Exs. 14, 15.) Plaintiffs argue that the personal information that Neil Sankey disclosed in the April 13 correspondence about Lisa Liberi was taken directly from the [Accurint] reports obtained by Sankey Firm, Inc. (Berg Decl. 46; see also Plaintiffs Memorandum Brief in Opposition to the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs Opposition to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 8.) However, as the unredacted versions of the reports make clear, that is not possible as the reports do not contain consumers full social security numbers. (See Miller Decl. Exs. I-K.) In other words, the very information that Plaintiffs contend was sourced from the reports alleged by Plaintiffs was not contained in those reports, and Plaintiffs own proffered evidence (once Plaintiffs misleading characterization that is unsupported by the evidence is removed) proves this to be the case. As was explained in Neil Sankeys Declaration In Support of LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary
23
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 26 27 28
Judgment, which Mr. Sankey signed under penalty of perjury, he obtained personal identifying information regarding Liberi including her Social Security number and date of birth from court filings made by Ms. Liberi in unrelated proceedings and not from the Accurint database. (See Docket No. 494-0.) As demonstrated by the unredacted versions of the reports attached as Exhibits 9 through 11 to the Berg Declaration and as explained further in the LexisNexis Defendants Opposition to Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs have not mounted any credible evidence to challenge Mr. Sankeys Declaration. 24.Accurint reports are intended to give users workable leads to help identify and locate a particular individual, not to provide definitive information about that individual. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 1718, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148-165,Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19; Ex. A, pp. 11-37; and Estella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3; Exs. 27, pp. 22-71.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 24: The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that
24
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 26 27 28
the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it either has no relevance to the stated fact or does not dispute it in any way. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 19-22, Exs. 9-11, 14, 15; see also Liberi & Ostella Decls.) On the contrary, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11, which Plaintiffs allege are Accurint reports that the Sankey Defendants ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband, Brent Liberi, support the stated fact by including the following disclaimer at the top of each report: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. (See Berg Decl. Exs. 9-11.) The reports also include such tentative phrases as Names Associated With the Subject, Possible Associates, and Possible Relatives. (Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11.)
25.The reports themselves recognize the uncertainties inherent in this sort of search. They identify Names Associated With the Subject, Possible Associates, Possible Relatives, etc.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 1718, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9- 10, 14, 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148-165; Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19; Ex. A, pp. 11-37; Ostella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3; Exs. 2-7, pp. 22-71 Dr. Ostella Decl., pp. 6-7, 18, 20-21.
25
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 26 27 28
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 25: The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it either has no relevance to the stated fact or does not dispute it in any way. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11, 14, 15; see also Liberi & Ostella Decls.) On the contrary, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11, which Plaintiffs allege are Accurint reports that the Sankey Defendants ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband, Brent Liberi, support the stated fact by including the following disclaimer at the top of each report: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. (See Berg Decl. Exs. 9-11.) The reports also include such tentative phrases as Names Associated With the Subject, Possible Associates, and Possible Relatives. (Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11.) All of this actual evidence offered by the LexisNexis Defendants is undisputed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs themselves have complained that the reports include information with respect to other, unrelated individuals, and is therefore inaccurate as to the particular plaintiff supposedly being reported upon. That is exactly the point Plaintiffs own allegations therefore tend to prove this fact rather than to dispute it.
26
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 26 27 28
26.In addition, the data sources themselves come with certain recognized limitations. Accurint reports include the following notice: Important. The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may be obtained from that individual States Department of State.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135,137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157;
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 26: The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it either has no relevance to the stated fact or does not dispute it in any way. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11, 14, 15; see also Liberi & Ostella Decls.) On the contrary, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11, which Plaintiffs allege are Accurint reports that the Sankey Defendants ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband, Brent Liberi, support the stated fact by including the following disclaimer at the top of each report: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This
27
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 26 27 28
system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. (See Berg Decl. Exs. 9-11.) The reports also include such tentative phrases as Names Associated With the Subject, Possible Associates, and Possible Relatives. (Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11.) All of this actual evidence offered by the LexisNexis Defendants is undisputed by Plaintiffs. 27.Accurint reports were delivered in several different ways. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate exclusively to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it has nothing to do with the asserted fact and therefore cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact. None of the cited material provide any information about the different ways that Accurint reports were delivered in.
28
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 26 27 28
28.LNRDMI sold Accurint reports DISPUTED directly to subscribers who had entered into agreements with LNRDMI or an RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg affiliated company. Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 4145,Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 7072, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 28: The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it has nothing to do with the asserted fact and therefore cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not provide any information about the ways in which LNRDMI sold Accurint reports to subscribers. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.)
29
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 26 27 28
29.None of the Taitz or Sankey Defendants had accounts with LNRDMI that gave them access to Accurint reports.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 4145,Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 7072, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154157; Exs. 9, pp. 175-180; Liberi Decl., pp. 2-3, 4, 7; Ex. 1, pp. 2428; and DN 496-1, pages 8-9, paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 29: The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Ex. 9; Liberi Decl. Ex. 1 (duplicate of Ex. 9 to Berg Decl.).) Plaintiffs reliance on Exhibit 9 to the Berg Declaration, which is a People Search report that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi on or around March 16, 2009, to negate the stated fact is futile. (Berg Decl. 27, Ex. 9.) Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that because the report identifies https://secure.accurint.com/app/bps/main as the URL website from which it was purportedly retrieved, the Sankey Defendants must have conducted directly from any of the Reed Defendants. (Berg Decl. 27.)
30
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 26 27 28
This conclusion is not supported by the attached report. The LexisNexis Defendants readily admit that the Sankey Defendants had access to an Accurint database and were able to purchase Accurint reports on Plaintiffs through their account with IRBSearch, LLC. As stated in Lisa Simmons Declaration In Support of LexisNexis Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment (the Simmons Declaration): LNRDMI entered into agreements with other information providers (resellers) under which such providers could run search against the Accurint database to prepare reports that the resellers sold to their own customers under either their own brand or the Accurint brand. (Simmons Decl. 9; see also LexisNexis Defendants Statement of Uncontroverted Facts No. 30.) Plaintiffs argument based on the stated URL tends to support this Undisputed Fact as it relates to resellers selling under the Accurint Brand. Thus, the fact that the report indicates an Acurint URL only suggests that it was retrieved from an Accurint database, which is consistent with the LexisNexis Defendants Statement of Uncontroverted Facts. However, that does nothing to support Plaintiffs additional inference that the Sankey Defendants search, which purportedly yielded the report, must have been conducted directly from any of the Reed Defendants. As such, Exhibit 9 to the Berg Declaration cannot create a dispute as to the stated fact. Nor does Plaintiffs reliance on the Sankey Defendants Motion to Withdraw Admissions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) create a genuine dispute of material fact. (See Docket No. 496-1.) The question at issue in this statement of undisputed fact is whether the Sankey Defendants had an account directly with LNRDMI. Nothing contained in the Sankey Defendants motion suggests that they do. The LexisNexis Defendants have themselves stated that the Sankey Defendants had access to Accurint reports through their account with the Accurint reseller IRB.
31
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 26 27 28
30.In addition, LNRDMI entered into agreements with other information providers (resellers) under which such providers could run searches against the Accurint database to prepare reports that the resellers sold to their own customers under either their own brand or the Accurint brand.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 8586, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157;
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 30: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate solely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) 31.One such Accurint reseller was IRBsearch, LLC (IRB). IRB is a reseller that sells information services to the private investigator and process server sub-market. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157;
32
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 26 27 28
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 31: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate solely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) 32.Defendant The Sankey Firm had an account with IRB that permitted The Sankey Firm to purchase Accurint reports from IRB. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 1922, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, pp. 175-180.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 32: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 58, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Ex. 9; Liberi Decl. Ex. 1 (duplicate of Ex. 9 to Berg Decl.).) Plaintiffs reliance on
33
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 26 27 28
Exhibit 9 to the Berg Declaration, which is a People Search report that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi on or around March 16, 2009, to negate the stated fact is futile. (Berg Decl. 27, Ex. 9.) Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that because the report identifies https://secure.accurint.com/app/bps/main as the URL website from which it was purportedly retrieved, the Sankey Defendants must have conducted directly from any of the Reed Defendants rather than from IRB. (Berg Decl. 27.) This conclusion is not supported by the attached report. The LexisNexis Defendants readily admit that the Sankey Defendants had access to an Accurint database and were able to purchase Accurint reports on Plaintiffs. As stated in Lisa Simmons Declaration In Support of LexisNexis Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment (the Simmons Declaration): LNRDMI entered into agreements with other information providers (resellers) under which such providers could run search against the Accurint database to prepare reports that the resellers sold to their own customers under either their own brand or the Accurint brand. (Simmons Decl. 9; see also LexisNexis Defendants Statement of Uncontroverted Facts No. 30.) Thus, the fact that the report indicates an Acurint URL only suggests that it was retrieved from an Accurint database, which is consistent with the LexisNexis Defendants Statement of Uncontroverted Facts. However, that does nothing to support Plaintiffs additional inference that the Sankey Defendants search, which purportedly yielded the report, must have been conducted directly from any of the Reed Defendants and not from IRB. As such, Exhibit 9 to the Berg Declaration cannot create a dispute as to the stated fact. Note also that Undisputed Fact No. 30 reads as follows: In addition, LNRDMI entered into agreements with other information providers (resellers) under which such providers could run searches against the Accurint database to prepare reports that the resellers sold to their own customers under either their own brand or the Accurint brand. Plaintiffs argument based on the stated URL tends
34
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 26 27 28
to support this Undisputed Fact as it relates to resellers selling under the Accurint Brand.
33.A true and correct copy of the Public Record Products Application & Agreement entered into between The Sankey Firm and IRB dated February 21, 2007, (the IRB/Sankey Agreement) is attached as Exhibit A to the Simmons Declaration.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 9-11, B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 2225, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 33: This fact is undisputed. The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 9-11; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 28-29.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether a true and correct copy of the IRB Application & Agreement was attached as Exhibit A to the Simmons Declaration. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.)
35
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 26 27 28
34. LNRDMIs intent and expectation in offering Accurint products for sale was that the Accurint products were not consumer reports within the meaning of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, et seq the FCRA).
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5 , A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60, 87; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 8586, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exbs 17-18, pp. 305-309; Liberi Decl., pp. 13-14, 29; Exs. 14 and 15, pp. 184-188; Ostella Decl., pp. 6-7, 7-9
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 34: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 58, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829; Liberi Decl. 13-14, Exs. 14, 15; Ostella Decl. 6-7.) For example, to negate the stated fact that it was LNRDMIs intent and expectation that Accurint products would not be used as consumer reports within the meaning of the FCRA, Plaintiffs cite pages 28-29 of the Berg Declaration, in which Plaintiffs attempt to argue that the Accurint reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly obtained on Plaintiffs were consumer reports because of the purposes that the Sankey Defendants marked on their Application & Agreement with IRB. (Berg Decl. 28-29; see also Ostella
36
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 26 27 28
Decl. 6-7 (also arguing that an Accurint report is a consumer report based on the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankeys marked on their Application & Agreement with IRB).) However, as is clear from the face of the Application & Agreement, the marked purposes were expressly in reference to statutes other than the FCRA. Section C of the Application, invited the applicant to mark at least one GLBA [Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act] Permissible Uses. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A at 2.) Similarly, Section E invited the application to mark at least one DPPA [Drivers Privacy Protection Act] Permissible Purposes. (Id.) Thus, none of the purposes that the Sankeys marked in those two sections can bear on whether the Accurint products could be expected to be used as consumer reports within the FCRA. On the contrary, by signing the IRB Application & Agreement, the Sankeys expressly certified that they would not use any of the information [they] receive[d] through IRBsearch Services for any permissible purpose under the FCRA. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiffs own First Amended Complaint asserts that the Sankey Defendants had no FCRA permissible purpose. (See, e.g., FAC 144-74, 341-64.) (alleging that the LexisNexis Defendants disclosed personal identifying information to unauthorized third parties with no permissible purpose(s) for receiving and using such information ( 149 (emphasis in original)), disclosed the foregoing consumer reports without any permissible purpose(s) therefor[e] ( 348, 355), and that the Sankey and Taitz Defendants did not have permissible purpose for receiving and/or using Plaintiffs[] information ( 156).) It is thus more than a little odd for Plaintiffs to now argue that the reports qualify as consumer reports because they were provided for a purpose for which consumer reports are permitted to be used. Furthermore, neither the Liberi Declaration nor the attached exhibits bear on the disputed fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. 13-14, Exs. 14, 15.) These exhibits show only a reference to an insurance Accurint product and a collections Accurint product. They do not say anything as to whether those products constituted
37
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 26 27 28
consumer reports under the FCRA or how they relate to the Accurint products at issue in this case. As the LexisNexis Defendants make clear in their Reply Brief in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment (Reply Br.), as a legal matter the inference that Plaintiffs seek to draw from these two exhibits is incorrect. (See Reply Br. 9.) Finally, Plaintiffs nowhere suggest or provide any evidence whatsoever that suggests that the products described generally in Exhibits 14 and 15 of the Liberi Declaration are at issue in this case. 35.The following language appears on the webpage that can be found at www.Accurint.com and other Accurint webpages (see,e.g., www.Accurint.com, https://secure.accurint.com/app/b ps/ main, etc.): The Accurint services arenot provided by consumer reporting agencies, as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.) (FCRA) and do not constitute consumer reports, as constitute consumer reports, as that term is defined in the FCRA. Accordingly, the Accurint service may not be used in whole or in part as a factor in determining eligibility for credit, insurance, employment or for other eligibility determination purposes that would qualify the service as a consumer report under the FCRA. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; p. 11, B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45; Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 35: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on
38
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 26 27 28
the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 11; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether the quoted language appears on the Accurint webpages. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) 36.This same language is also included on the customer sign-in page. See https://secure.accurint.com/app/b ps/ main. For security purposes Accurint customers are specifically instructed to access the Accurint product only from this sign-in page. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; p. 11,B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45,Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 36: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 11; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey
39
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 26 27 28
Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether the quoted language appears on the Accurint customer signin page. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) 37.In its standard form subscription agreements with end-users, LNRDMI required such users to agree (a) that Accurint reports were not consumer reports within the meaning of the FCRA, and (b) that the users would not use Accurint reports in determining a consumers eligibility for credit, insurance employment or for any other purpose that would cause Accurint reports to be treated as consumer reports within the meaning of the FCRA. A true and correct copy of the form subscription agreement used for the Accurint product in 2009 is attached as Exhibit B to the Simmons Declaration. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; p. 11, B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 37: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 11; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether LNRDMI requires its end-users to agree to the specified terms in its subscription agreements. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.)
40
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 26 27 28
38.While some of the wording in this DISPUTED form has changed over time, the essential substance of these provisions RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; and Berg has remained the same Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157. LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 38: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 11; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether the substance of the referenced provisions in LNRDMIs subscription agreements with end-users has changed over time. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.)
41
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 26 27 28
39.Among other things, those agreements require each customer, as a condition to obtain any Accurint data product to agree in Section 2(vii) that: For the purposes of this Agreement, the [LexisNexis] entities listed on the first page of this Agreement are not consumer reporting agencies, as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. (FCRA), and such entities do not issue consumer reports, as that term is defined in the FCRA. Accordingly, (A) Customer certifies that it will not use any of the information it receives through the LNRM Services for any of the following purposes: (1) in establishing a consumers eligibility for credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family or household purposes or in connection with the review or collection of an connection with a determination of a consumers eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a government agency; (4) as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or assessment of credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or (5) for any other purpose deemed to be a permissible purpose under the FCRA; . . . existing credit account of a consumer; (2) for employment purposes; (3) in
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; p. 11, B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28- 29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60, 87; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 17 and 18, pp. 305-309.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 39: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on
42
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 26 27 28
the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 11; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether LNRDMI requires its end-users to agree to the specified terms in its subscription agreements. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) Furthermore, Exhibits 17 and 18 to the Berg Declaration do not bear on the disputed fact in any way. These exhibits show only a reference to an insurance Accurint product and a collections Accurint product. They do not say anything as to whether those products constituted consumer reports under the FCRA. As the LexisNexis Defendants make clear in their Reply Brief, as a legal matter the inference that Plaintiffs seek to draw from these two exhibits is incorrect. (See Reply Br. 9.) Finally, Plaintiffs nowhere suggest or provide any evidence whatsoever that suggests that the products described generally in Exhibits 14 and 15 of the Liberi Declaration are at issue in this case.
43
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 26 27 28
40.Where LNRDMI entered into agreements with resellers of Accurint products, LNRDMI required such resellers to include in the resellers agreements with their end-users language reflecting the same understanding and use restriction found in LNRDMIs agreements with its end users.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; p. 12, B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 2829 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 5758, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 8586, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 40: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 11; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether LNRDMI required that resellers of Accurint products include certain use restrictions in their agreements with end-users. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) On the contrary, the IRB Application & Agreement supports the stated fact as it expressly required the Sankeys to certify that they would not use any of the information [they] receive[d] through IRBsearch Services for any permissible purpose under the FCRA. (Id. 4.)
44
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 26 27 28
41. This is illustrated by the Accurint Services Re-Seller Agreement between IRB and LNRDMIs predecessor as of September 3, 2002 (the Re-Seller Agreement), a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C to the Simmons Declaration.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; p. 12, B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 41: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 12; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether LNRDMI required that resellers of Accurint products, including IRB, include certain use restrictions in their agreements with end-users. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) On the contrary, the IRB Application & Agreement supports the stated fact as it expressly required the Sankeys to certify that they would not use any of the information [they] receive[d] through IRBsearch Services for any permissible purpose under the FCRA. (Id. 4.)
45
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 26 27 28
42.In the Re-Seller Agreement, LNRDMI granted IRB a license to be an authorized re-seller of Accurint Services to the private investigative industry, bail bondsmen and physical asset repossession companies. LNRDMI and IRB expressly agreed in Paragraph 9 that: USE LIMITATIONS Re-Seller specifically agrees that Re- Sellers customers will comply with the following use limitations on the use of the Accurint Services: (a) not to use the Accurint Services for any permitted purpose covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.); (b) not to use the Accurint Services other than pursuant to an exception of the privacy provisions of the Gramm Leach- Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 6801 et seq.); (c) not to use the Accurint Services in violation of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2721 et seq.); and (d) such other legislation that may be enacted in the future that Seisint determines limits the use of the Accurint [neeServices by the Customers.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; p. 12, B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 42: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 12; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey
46
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 26 27 28
Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether LNRDMI required that resellers of Accurint products, including IRB, include certain use restrictions in their agreements with end-users. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) On the contrary, the IRB Application & Agreement supports the stated fact as it expressly required the Sankeys to certify that they would not use any of the information [they] receive[d] through IRBsearch Services for any permissible purpose under the FCRA. (Id. 4.) 43.The Re-Seller Agreement provides in Paragraph 7 that LNRDMI shall solely be responsible for the provision of the Accurint Service to the ReSeller, but makes clear that IRB shall be responsible for all activities and costs associated with marketing, prospecting, qualifying customers, sales, sales support and contracting with the Customers. The Customers will contract directly with Re-Seller. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; p. 13, B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 43: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 13; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement
47
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 26 27 28
with IRB, not the substance of LNRDMIs Re-Seller Agreement with IRB. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) 44.The agreement between IRB and The Sankey Firm under which The Sankey Firm ran the searches and reports described above expressly provides: For the purposes of this Agreement, IRBsearch is not a consumer reporting agency, as that term is defined in the FCRA. Accordingly, (A) Customer certifies that it will not use any of the information it receives through IRBSearch Services for any of the following purposes: (1) in establishing a consumers eligibility for credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family or household purposes or in connection with the review or collection of an existing credit account of a consumer; (2) for employment purposes; (3) in connection with a determination of a consumers eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a government agency; (4) as a potential investor servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or assessment of credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or (5) for any other purpose deemed to be a permissible purpose under the [text missing???] DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 1314, B-II; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 4953, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 44: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 14; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.)
48
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 26 27 28
To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether the IRB Application & Agreement contained the referenced use restriction. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) In fact, as the face of the IRB Application & Agreement makes clear, it did contain the referenced use restriction and required the Sankeys to certify that they would not use any of the information [they] receive[d] through IRBsearch Services for any permissible purpose under the FCRA. (Id. 4.) 45.IRB account held by The Sankey Firm DISPUTED did not permit the display of full social security numbers. RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 14, BII; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 8586, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135,137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 17-18, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, and 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148-165, Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19; Ex. A, pp. 11-37; and Ostella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3; Exs. 2-7, pp. 22-71
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 45: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to
49
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 26 27 28
Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 14; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it actually proves the stated facts instead of disputing them. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11; Liberi Decl. Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15; Ostella Decl. 2-7.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personalinformation reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Libri. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not disclose Liberis and her husbands full social security numbers. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 911.) In his declaration, Mr. Berg noted that he redacted social security numbers [from the three reports attached as Exhibits 9-11 . . . for this filing and that the actual documents received from the Sankey Defendants were not redacted. (Berg Decl. 27 & n.1.) Indeed, in the attached reports, Plaintiffs blacked out the line next to the heading Social Security Number suggesting that the unredacted versions of these reports disclosed the full social security numbers. (See, e.g., Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11; see also Liberi Decl. Exs. 2, 3 (duplicates of Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11, respectively).) In fact, contrary to the misleading redactions and Plaintiffs statements about those redactions, the unredacted versions of these reports do not contain the full social security numbers. Rather, the unredacted versions disclose the social security numbers in a truncated form by containing the notation XXXX as a substitute for the last four Social Security numbers. (See Miller Decl. Exs. IK.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declarations of Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella are futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. Exs. 6 (a copy of LexisNexis Risk Solutions webpage, https://personalreports.lexisnexis.com/, making no mention of whether Sankeys
50
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 26 27 28
IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers), 7 (a copy of Request for Full File Disclosure form, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers), 9 (a copy of November 29, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Liberi regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers), 10 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers), 14 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers), 15 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers); Ostella Decl. Exs. 2 (a copy of Accurint Report Request Form, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers), 3 (a copy of November 22, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. to Lisa Ostella, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers and explaining that Accurint is not governed by the Fair Credit Report Act), 4 (a copy of November 17, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers), 5 (a copy of November 18, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Consumer Center to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Full File Disclosure, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers and noting that LexisNexis only creates consumer reports at the request of recipients that have a permissible purpose to access the reports under the FCRA), 6 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
51
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 26 27 28
making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers), 7 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the State of New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention of whether Sankeys IRB account permitted display of full social security numbers).) 46. For the majority of customers, Accurint reports do not contain full social security numbers: they contain, instead, the first five digits of the social security number. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 14, BII; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 8586, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 17-18, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148165, Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19 and Ex. A, pp. 11-37; Ostella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3 and Exs. 2-7, pp. 22-71
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 46: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 14; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it actually tends to prove the stated facts instead of disputing them. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11; Liberi Decl. Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15; Ostella Decl. 2LEXISNEXIS DEFS. RESPONSE TO PLS. STATEMENT OF GENUINE DISPUTES CASE NO. CV11-00485 AG (AJWX) sf-3137781
52
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 26 27 28
7.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personalinformation reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not disclose Liberis and her husbands full social security numbers. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 911.) In his declaration, Mr. Berg noted that he redacted social security numbers [from the three reports attached as Exhibits 9-11 . . . for this filing and that the actual documents received from the Sankey Defendants were not redacted. (Berg Decl. 27 & n.1.) Indeed, in the attached reports, Plaintiffs blacked out the line next to the heading Social Security Number suggesting that the unredacted versions of these reports disclosed the full social security numbers. (See, e.g., Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11; see also Liberi Decl. Exs. 2, 3 (duplicates of Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11, respectively).) In fact, contrary to the misleading redactions and Plaintiffs statements about those redactions, the unredacted versions of these reports do not contain the full social security numbers. Rather, the unredacted versions disclose the social security numbers in a truncated form by containing the notation XXXX as a substitute for the last four Social Security numbers. (See Miller Decl. Exs. IK.) In other words, Plaintiffs evidence supports the undisputed fact, rather than contradicting it. Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declarations of Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella are futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. Exs. 6 (a copy of LexisNexis Risk Solutions webpage, https://personalreports.lexisnexis.com/, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers), 7 (a copy of Request for Full File Disclosure form, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers), 9 (a copy of November 29, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Liberi regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure
53
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 26 27 28
Report, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers), 10 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers), 14 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers), 15 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers); Ostella Decl. Exs. 2 (a copy of Accurint Report Request Form, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers), 3 (a copy of November 22, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. to Lisa Ostella, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers and explaining that Accurint is not governed by the Fair Credit Report Act), 4 (a copy of November 17, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers), 5 (a copy of November 18, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Consumer Center to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Full File Disclosure, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers and noting that LexisNexis only creates consumer reports at the request of recipients that have a permissible purpose to access the reports under the FCRA), 6 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers), 7 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the State of New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no
54
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 26 27 28
mention of whether Accurint reports contain full social security numbers for the majority of customers).) 47. LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement agencies and certain carefully credentialed customers. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 14, BII; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 8586, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 17-18, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148165; Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19; Ex. A, pp. 11-37; and L. Ostella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3; Exs. 2-7, pp. 22-71
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 47: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 14; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it actually tends to prove the stated facts instead of disputing them y. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11; Liberi Decl. Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15; Ostella Decl. 2-7.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not
55
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 26 27 28
disclose Liberis and her husbands full social security numbers. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) In his declaration, Mr. Berg noted that he redacted social security numbers [from the three reports attached as Exhibits 9-11 . . . for this filing and that the actual documents received from the Sankey Defendants were not redacted. (Berg Decl. 27 & n.1.) Indeed, in the attached reports, Plaintiffs blacked out the line next to the heading Social Security Number suggesting that the unredacted versions of these reports disclosed the full social security numbers. (See, e.g., Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11; see also Liberi Decl. Exs. 2, 3 (duplicates of Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11, respectively).) In fact, contrary to the misleading redactions and Plaintiffs statements about those redactions, the unredacted versions of these reports do not contain the full social security numbers. Rather, the unredacted versions disclose the social security numbers in a truncated form by containing the notation XXXX as a substitute for the last four Social Security numbers. (See Miller Decl. Exs. IK.) In other words, Plaintiffs evidence supports the undisputed fact, rather than contradicting it. Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declarations of Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella are futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. Exs. 6 (a copy of LexisNexis Risk Solutions webpage, https://personalreports.lexisnexis.com/, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers), 7 (a copy of Request for Full File Disclosure form, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers), 9 (a copy of November 29, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Liberi regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers), 10 (a copy of A
56
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 26 27 28
Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers), 14 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers), 15 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers); Ostella Decl. Exs. 2 (a copy of Accurint Report Request Form, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers), 3 (a copy of November 22, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. to Lisa Ostella, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers and explaining that Accurint is not governed by the Fair Credit Report Act), 4 (a copy of November 17, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers), 5 (a copy of November 18, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Consumer Center to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Full File Disclosure, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers and noting that LexisNexis only creates consumer reports at the request of recipients that have a permissible purpose to access the reports under the FCRA), 6 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers), 7 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the State of New
57
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 26 27 28
Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention of whether LNRDMI provides full social security numbers only to law enforcement and certain carefully credentialed customers).) 48. None of the searches or reports run by the Sankey Defendants included the full social security numbers of Plaintiff Liberi or Plaintiff Ostella.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 14, BII; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45,Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 8586, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 17-18, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148165, Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19; Ex. A, pp. 11-37; Ostella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3; Exs. 2-7, pp. 22-71
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 48: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 14; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it actually proves the stated facts instead of disputing them. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11; Liberi Decl. Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15; Ostella Decl. 2-7.)
58
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 26 27 28
For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personalinformation reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports do not disclose Liberis and her husbands full social security numbers. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 911.) These reports standing alone are enough to put the stated facts beyond dispute. In his declaration, Mr. Berg noted that he redacted social security numbers [from the three reports attached as Exhibits 9-11 . . . for this filing and that the actual documents received from the Sankey Defendants were not redacted. (Berg Decl. 27 & n.1.) In the attached reports, Plaintiffs blacked out the line next to the heading Social Security Number suggesting that the unredacted versions of these reports disclosed the full social security numbers. (See, e.g., Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11; see also Liberi Decl. Exs. 2, 3 (duplicates of Berg Decl. Exs. 10, 11, respectively).) In fact, contrary to the misleading redactions and Plaintiffs statements about those redactions, the unredacted versions of these reports do not contain the full social security numbers. Rather, the unredacted versions disclose the social security numbers in a truncated form by containing the notation XXXX as a substitute for the last four Social Security numbers. (See Miller Decl. Exs. IK.) In other words, Plaintiffs evidence proves the undisputed fact, rather than contradicting it. Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declarations of Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella are futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. Exs. 6 (a copy of LexisNexis Risk Solutions webpage, https://personalreports.lexisnexis.com/, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers), 7 (a copy of Request for Full File Disclosure form, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers), 9 (a copy of November 29, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Liberi regarding her
59
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 26 27 28
request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention whether the searches ran by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers), 10 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention whether the searches ran by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers), 14 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers), 15 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers); Ostella Decl. Exs. 2 (a copy of Accurint Report Request Form, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers), 3 (a copy of November 22, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. to Lisa Ostella, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers and explaining that Accurint is not governed by the Fair Credit Report Act), 4 (a copy of November 17, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers), 5 (a copy of November 18, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Consumer Center to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Full File Disclosure, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers and noting that LexisNexis only creates consumer reports at the request of recipients that have a permissible purpose to access the reports under the FCRA), 6 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting
60
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 26 27 28
Act, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers), 7 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the State of New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention whether the searches run by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers).) 49.LNRDMIs records of searches DISPUTED against the Accurint database indicate the subscriber by which the search was RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 15, Bmade. III; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 2225,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154157; Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 17-18, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148-165, Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19; Ex. A, pp. 1137; Ostella Decl., pp. 3-4, 3; Exs. 27, pp. 22-71.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 49: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 15; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.)
61
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 26 27 28
To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not dispute the stated facts in any way. (See, e.g., Berg Decl. 2829; Liberi Decl. Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15; Ostella Decl. 2-7.) For example, pages 28 to 29 of the Berg Declaration relate to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) The cited material does not shed any light as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database. Nor do Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Liberi Declaration relate to the stated fact. Those exhibits are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Liberi Decl. Exs. 2, 3.) Contrary to the misleading redactions and Plaintiffs statements about those redactions, the unredacted versions of these reports do not contain the full social security numbers. (See Miller Decl. Exs. I-K.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declarations of Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella are futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. Exs. 6 (a copy of LexisNexis Risk Solutions webpage, https://personalreports.lexisnexis.com/, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database), 7 (a copy of Request for Full File Disclosure form, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database), 9 (a copy of November 29, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Liberi regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database), 10 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database), 14 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database), 15 (a copy of marketing materials from
62
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 26 27 28
LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database); Ostella Decl. Exs. 2 (a copy of Accurint Report Request Form, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database), 3 (a copy of November 22, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. to Lisa Ostella, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database and explaining that Accurint is not governed by the Fair Credit Report Act), 4 (a copy of November 17, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database), 5 (a copy of November 18, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Consumer Center to Lisa Ostella regarding her request for Full File Disclosure, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database and noting that LexisNexis only creates consumer reports at the request of recipients that have a permissible purpose to access the reports under the FCRA), 6 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention as to what LNRDMIs records reflect about past searches in the Accurint database), 7 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the State of New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention whether the searches ran by the Sankey Defendants included or could have included Plaintiffs full social security numbers).)
63
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 26 27 28
50.Where a reseller runs a search against DISPUTED the Accurint database, LNRDMIs records indicate the reseller by which RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 15, Bthe search was made. III; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 2225,, 28- 29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrogatory No.s [Interrog.] 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, Request for Production [RFP] No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122- 123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154157. LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 50: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 15; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not how LNRDMIs records indicate resellers searches in an Accurint database. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) Plaintiffs have not offered any actual facts tending to put the stated fact in dispute.
64
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 26 27 28
51.Records of searches by resellers indicate which of the resellers customers initiated the search by the reseller.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 15, BIII; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 2225,, 28- 29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 51: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 15; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not how LNRDMIs records indicate which of resellers customers initiated the particular search in an Accurint database. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.)
65
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 26 27 28
52.Lisa Policastro is able to determine from LNRDMIs records which searches and reports were purchased by The Sankey Firm, including searches that were initiated through resellers.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 15, BIII; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 2225,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60 Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 52: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5, 15; see also Berg Decl. 23, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. 2829.) The cited material relates to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether LNRDMIs records reflect the Sankey Defendants searches. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.)
66
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 26 27 28
53. A user ID that was assigned to Neil Sankey was used to run the following searches with IRB: last name = Liberi and first name = Lisa, Brent (husband) or Vincent (unknown). The search types were: Person, Business, Court, Civil, Criminal, Marriage & Divorce, and Comprehensive Person. The searches were run on March 16, 2009; April 6, 2009; April 15, 2009; April 19, 2009; and May 7, 2009, last name = Ostella and first name = Lisa, Frank (husband) or Mario (unknown). The search types were: Person and Comprehensive Person. The searches were run on April 13, 2009, and April 19, 2009
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283; L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, 1718, 8-9, 21- 22, 24, 29, 31, 39; Exs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 15, pp. 30-131, 137-143, 148-165, Liberi Decl., p. 8, 19; Ex. A, pp. 11-37; Ostella, pp. 6-9, 7-9, 11-13 Dr. Ostella Decl., pp. 4-5, 11-14
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 53: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate primarily to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 58, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11; Liberi Decl. Exs. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15; Ostella Decl. 6-9.) For example, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) Those reports support, rather than dispute, the stated fact by confirming that the Sankeys ran Person and Comprehensive
67
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 26 27 28
searches on the Liberis on March 16, 2009, and April 6, 2009. (See Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11; see also Liberi Decl. Exs. 2, 3.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs reliance on the declarations of Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella are futile as the cited material does not bear on the stated fact in any way. (See Liberi Decl. Exs. 6 (a copy of LexisNexis Risk Solutions webpage, https://personalreports.lexisnexis.com/, making no mention as to the searches ran by the Sankeys), 7 (a copy of Request for Full File Disclosure form, making no mention as to the searches ran by the Sankeys), 9 (a copy of November 29, 2010 letter from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC to Lisa Liberi regarding her request for Riskview Consumer Disclosure Report, making no mention as to the searches ran by the Sankeys), 10 (a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, making no mention as to the searches ran by the Sankeys), 14 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention as to the searches ran by the Sankeys), 15 (a copy of marketing materials from LexisNexis Risk Solutions website, making no mention as to the searches ran by the Sankeys); Ostella Decl. 6-9, 11-13, making no mention as to the searches ran by the Sankeys).) To the extent that Plaintiffs are disputing this fact as being untrue, they are undermining their own First Amended Complaint. To the extent these searches were not run, even Plaintiffs purported claims are eliminated because it removes any connection that the LexisNexis Defendants might otherwise have to the conduct alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
68
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 26 27 28
54.As a matter of standard operating practice, LNRDMI did not retain records of which items of data were returned in response to a search criteria, only the criteria used for the search or report.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75- 76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Exs. 9, 10, 11, pp. 175-283;
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 54: This fact is undisputed. For the most part, the material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. Instead, Plaintiffs citations relate largely to their discovery-related challenges which cannot create a genuine issue of material fact and with which LexisNexis Defendants have dealt separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact. (See RTS and OBJ 2-5; see also Berg Decl. 2-3, 58, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) Indeed, all that these discovery disputes show is that the LexisNexis Defendants produced full information with regard to the criteria used for the search or report. Thus, Plaintiffs discovery disputes tend to support the stated fact, not dispute it. To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Exs. 9-11.) Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration are personal-information reports that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent Liberi on March 16, 2009, and April 6, 2009. (See Berg Decl. 10-13.) The dates of those reports correspond to LNRDMIs records which indicate that the Sankeys ran searches on the Liberis on those dates. (See UF No. 53 (Docket No. 491-2).) However, by Plaintiffs own admissions, the reports themselves were
69
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 26 27 28
produced by the Sankey Defendants, not LNRDMI since LNRDMI does not retain such records. (See Berg Decl. 9.) Thus, their existence does not bear on, let alone dispute, the stated fact. 55.Defendant Neil Sankey obtained the so-called personal identifying information regarding Liberi including her full Social Security number and date of birth from court filings made by Ms. Liberi. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; and Berg Decl., pp. 15-22, 37-48, Exs. 915, pp. 175-299; Liberi Decl., pp. 34, 5-8, 8-18; Exs. 2, 3, 4 and 5, pp. 30-136.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 55: This fact is undisputed. To the extent that Plaintiffs cite their discovery-related challenges, the cited material does not bear on the substance of the stated fact in any way and LexisNexis Defendants have dealt with those challenges separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed concurrently herewith. (See RTS and OBJ 25.) Nor does the remaining material on which Plaintiffs rely challenge the stated fact so as to create a genuine dispute. As Neil Sankey stated in his Declaration in Support of LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Sankey Decl.), under penalty of perjury, he obtained certain personal identifying information regarding Lisa Liberi, including her Social Security number, from public court filings which Ms. Liberi filed in a criminal action in San Bernadino Superior Court and in a bankruptcy action in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Central District of California. (Sankey Decl. Exs. A, B (See Docket No. 494-0).) Plaintiffs raise several arguments to challenge this statement. First, in his declaration, Mr. Berg states that he is currently unable to access the bankruptcy court filings online on PACER. (Berg Decl. 40, Ex. 13.) Second, Mr. Berg refers to the San Bernardino Superior Courts webpage, titled Fine Information, setting
70
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 26 27 28
out what appears to be a list of various miscellaneous payments made in connection with Ms. Liberis criminal matter. (Berg Decl. 39, Ex. 12.) It is not clear how these vague allegations about tangential material can reasonably dispute the stated fact. The fact that court documents are currently unavailable on PACER, even assuming it is true, can not support an inference as to whether those same documents were publicly unavailable on PACER or from the courts physical files more than three years ago. The conclusion that Plaintiffs attempt to draw from the San Bernardinos courts webpage, Fine Information, is even more attenuated as Plaintiffs provide no foundation for what that webpage refers to and how it relates to whether the referenced court documents were publicly available from that court during the relevant time. Plaintiffs also make the argument that Mr. Sankey did not obtain the San Bernardino and the bankruptcy court filings until those documents were filed as exhibits in this case on July 11, 2011. (See Berg Decl. 41-42; see also Liberi Decl. 6-8.) As explained in the Miller Declaration, filed concurrently herewith, this argument is meritless as there is ample evidence that the documents were publicly available well in advance of July 11, 2011, and that Neil Sankey obtained the documents directly from court records in or about March 2009. (See Miller Decl. 25, Ex. F.) Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to the contrary. More importantly to the LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to suggest that Neil Sankey obtained Lisa Liberis social security numbers from an Accurint report. (See Berg Decl. Exs. 911; see also Liberi Decl. 3-4, Exs. 2, 3.) As explained above, contrary to the misleading redactions applied to the reports attached as Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 to the Berg Declaration and Mr. Bergs statements about those redactions, the reports do not disclose Liberis full social security numbers. (See Miller Decl. Exs. I-K.) For the same reason, Plaintiffs citation to various correspondence by the Sankey Defendants to Bob Unruh and Orly Taitz around April 13, 2009, in which
71
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 26 27 28
Neil Sankey discussed Lisa Liberis personal background and disclosed her purported full social security numbers, cannot create a genuine issue as to the stated facts. (See Berg Decl. Exs. 14, 15; see also Liberi Decl. 5.) Plaintiffs argue that the personal information that Neil Sankey disclosed in the April 13 correspondence about Lisa Liberi was taken directly from the [Accurint] reports obtained by Sankey Firm, Inc. (Berg Decl. 46; see also Plaintiffs Memorandum Brief in Opposition to the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs Opposition to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 8.) However, as the unredacted versions of the reports make clear, that is not possible as the reports do not contain consumers full social security numbers. (See Miller Decl. Exs. I-K.) Moreover, the reports produced by Plaintiffs in their opposition tend to support the stated fact. These reports demonstrate that Plaintiffs did not and could not have obtained the stated information from their contents. 56.Mr. Sankey obtained the court filings directly from courts. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 6-8, BI and Berg Decl., pp. 15-22, 37-48, Exs. 9-15, pp. 175-299; Liberi Decl., pp. 6-8, 14-18.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 56: See LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 55.
72
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 26 27 28
57.None of the LexisNexis Defendants was involved in any way in Mr. Sankeys retrieval of these publicly available documents
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 6-8, BI and Berg Decl., pp. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25,, 28-29 4-7, 12, 17, 19-22, 49-53, 60; Ex. 1, pp. 41-45, Ex. 3, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 at pp. 57-58, 62, 70-72, 75-76, 92, 97-98; Ex. 4, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, 25 at pp. 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 97; Ex. 6, Interrog. No.s 1, 2, 16, 19, 20, 24, pp. 122-123, 132-135, 137; Ex. 7, RFP No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 25, pp. 146-247, 149, 152, 154-157; Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 5-8, 8-18; Exs. 2, 3, 4, 5, pp. 30-136.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 57: This fact is undisputed. To the extent that Plaintiffs cite their discovery-related challenges, the cited material does not bear on the substance of the stated fact in any way and LexisNexis Defendants have dealt with those challenges separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed concurrently herewith. (See RTS and OBJ 25; Berg Decl. 2-3, 5-8, 22-25, Exs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.) Nor does the remaining material on which Plaintiffs rely challenge the stated fact so as to create a genuine dispute. (Berg Decl. 28-29; Liberi Decl. 3-4, 5-8, Exs. 2-5.) For example, pages 28 to 29 of the Berg Declaration relate to the non-FCRA purposes that the Sankey Defendants identified in their Public Record Products Application & Agreement with IRB, not whether the LexisNexis Defendants were involved in any way in Neil Sankeys retrieval of the referenced court documents. (See Simmons Decl. Ex. A.) As discussed above in LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 55, Plaintiffs arguments regarding whether Neil Sankey obtained the referenced documents from the San Bernardino and bankruptcy court records are equally meritless. (See Liberi Decl. 3-4, 5-8.)
73
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 26 27 28
58.Attached as Exhibit A to the Sankey Declaration is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Lisa Liberi that was filed by Ms. Liberi on September 21, 2006, in a criminal action brought against Ms. Liberi in San Bernadino, California (Case No. FWV 028000). In that declaration, Ms. Liberi set forth her full unredacted social security number, her date of birth, her marriage history (along with maiden names and her husbands name) and some portion of her criminal history.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 6-9, BI and Berg Decl., pp. 15-22, 37-48, Exs. 9-15, pp. 175-299; and L. Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 5-8, 8-18; Exs. 2, 3, 4, 5, pp. 30-136.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 58: See LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 55. 59.Attached as Exhibit B to the Sankey Declaration is a true and correct copy of documents filed by Ms. Liberi in connection with a bankruptcy action filed on behalf of Lisa Liberi in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Central District of California (Bankruptcy Petition No. 6:02-bk-22845-PC). That document is a public filing which included full unredacted social security numbers related to Ms. Liberi. Although all account and social security numbers appearing as Exhibit B have been at least partially redacted, the original copy on file with the court was unredacted. DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 6-9, BI and Berg Decl., pp. 15-22, 37-48, Exs. 9-15, pp. 175-299; Liberi Decl., pp. 3-4, 5-8, 8-18; Exs. 2, 3, 4, 5, pp. 30-136.
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 59: See LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 55.
74
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 26 27 28
60.The Sankey Defendants have never run any search on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi (or the name Lisa Liberi in any capacity) or Plaintiff Lisa Ostella (or the name of Lisa Ostella in any capacity) directly through the LexisNexis Defendants or any of their affiliates.
DISPUTED RTS and OBJ, pp. 2-5, A; pp. 6-9, BI and Berg Decl., pp. 9-10, 26; Ex. 9, pp. 175-180 Liberi Decl., pp. 2-4; Ex. 1, pp. 24-28; and DN 496-1, pages 89, paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
LexisNexis Defendants Response to Purported Dispute No. 60: The material cited by Plaintiffs does not relate to, let alone dispute, the stated fact. The cited discovery-related challenges do not bear in any way on the substance of the stated fact and LexisNexis Defendants have dealt with those challenges separately in their Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed concurrently herewith. (See RTS and OBJ 25.) To the extent that the cited material is not related to Plaintiffs discovery disputes, it does not in any way dispute the asserted fact. (See, e.g., Berg. Decl. Ex. 9.) Plaintiffs reliance on Exhibit 9 to the Berg Declaration, which is a People Search report that the Sankey Defendants allegedly ran on Lisa Liberi on or around March 16, 2009, to negate the stated fact is futile. (Berg Decl. 27, Ex. 9.) Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that because the report identifies https://secure.accurint.com/app/bps/main as the URL website from which it was purportedly retrieved, the Sankey Defendants must have conducted directly from any of the Reed Defendants. (Berg Decl. 27.) This conclusion is not supported by the attached report. The LexisNexis Defendants readily admit that the Sankey Defendants had access to an Accurint database and were able to purchase Accurint reports on Plaintiffs but the evidence demonstrates that such access was obtained through the Accurint re-seller IRB, not directly from any of the LexisNexis Defendants. As stated in Lisa Simmons Declaration In Support of LexisNexis Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment (the Simmons Declaration): LNRDMI entered into agreements with other
75
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 26 27 28
information providers (resellers) under which such providers could run search against the Accurint database to prepare reports that the resellers sold to their own customers under either their own brand or the Accurint brand. (Simmons Decl. 9; see also LexisNexis Defendants Statement of Uncontroverted Facts No. 30.) Thus, the fact that the report indicates an Acurint URL only suggests that it was retrieved from an Accurint database, which is consistent with the LexisNexis Defendants Statement of Uncontroverted Facts. However, that does nothing to support Plaintiffs additional inference that the Sankey Defendants search, which purportedly yielded the report, must have been conducted directly from any of the Reed Defendants. As such, Exhibit 9 to the Berg Declaration cannot create a dispute as to the stated fact. Note also that Undisputed Fact No. 30 reads as follows: In addition, LNRDMI entered into agreements with other information providers (resellers) under which such providers could run searches against the Accurint database to prepare reports that the resellers sold to their own customers under either their own brand or the Accurint brand. Plaintiffs argument based on the stated URL tends to support this Undisputed Fact as it relates to resellers selling under the Accurint Brand. Nor does Plaintiffs reliance on the Sankey Defendants Motion to Withdraw Admissions Pursuant to FRCP 36(b) create a genuine dispute of material fact. (See Docket No. 496-1.) The question at issue in this statement of undisputed fact is whether the Sankey Defendants had an account directly with LNRDMI. Nothing contained in the Sankey Defendants motion suggests that they do. The LexisNexis Defendants have themselves stated that the Sankey Defendants had access to Accurint Reports through their account with the Accurint reseller IRB.
76
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 26 27 28
Dated: May 7, 2012
JAMES F. McCABE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s James F. McCabe James F. McCabe Attorneys for Reed Elsevier Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group Inc.
77

Lexisnexis Defendants' Reply To Plaintiffs Disputed Facts Doc 516

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lexisnexis Defendants' Reply To Plaintiffs Disputed Facts Doc 516

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 78 Page ID #:13415

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 78 Page ID #:13416

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 78 Page ID #:13417

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 4 of 78 Page ID #:13418

2. There is no corporation known as LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint.

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 5 of 78 Page ID #:13419

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 6 of 78 Page ID #:13420

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 7 of 78 Page ID #:13421

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 8 of 78 Page ID #:13422

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 9 of 78 Page ID #:13423

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 10 of 78 Page ID #:13424

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 11 of 78 Page ID #:13425

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 12 of 78 Page ID #:13426

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 13 of 78 Page ID #:13427

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 14 of 78 Page ID #:13428

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 15 of 78 Page ID #:13429

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 16 of 78 Page ID #:13430

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 17 of 78 Page ID #:13431

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 18 of 78 Page ID #:13432

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 19 of 78 Page ID #:13433

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 20 of 78 Page ID #:13434

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 21 of 78 Page ID #:13435

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 22 of 78 Page ID #:13436

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 23 of 78 Page ID #:13437

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 24 of 78 Page ID #:13438

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 25 of 78 Page ID #:13439

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 26 of 78 Page ID #:13440

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 27 of 78 Page ID #:13441

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 28 of 78 Page ID #:13442

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 29 of 78 Page ID #:13443

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 30 of 78 Page ID #:13444

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 31 of 78 Page ID #:13445

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 32 of 78 Page ID #:13446

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 33 of 78 Page ID #:13447

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 34 of 78 Page ID #:13448

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 35 of 78 Page ID #:13449

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 36 of 78 Page ID #:13450

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 37 of 78 Page ID #:13451

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 38 of 78 Page ID #:13452

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 39 of 78 Page ID #:13453

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 40 of 78 Page ID #:13454

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 41 of 78 Page ID #:13455

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 42 of 78 Page ID #:13456

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 43 of 78 Page ID #:13457

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 44 of 78 Page ID #:13458

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 45 of 78 Page ID #:13459

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 46 of 78 Page ID #:13460

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 47 of 78 Page ID #:13461

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 48 of 78 Page ID #:13462

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 49 of 78 Page ID #:13463

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 50 of 78 Page ID #:13464

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 51 of 78 Page ID #:13465

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 52 of 78 Page ID #:13466

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 53 of 78 Page ID #:13467

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 54 of 78 Page ID #:13468

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 55 of 78 Page ID #:13469

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 56 of 78 Page ID #:13470

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 57 of 78 Page ID #:13471

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 58 of 78 Page ID #:13472

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 59 of 78 Page ID #:13473

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 60 of 78 Page ID #:13474

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 516 Filed 05/07/12 Page 61 of 78 Page ID #:13475