Nuance Communications, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation
- Robreno
- 7:16-cv-05173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nuance Communications v. IBM, Judge Robreno granted IBM’s motion to strike hearsay testimony and struck Jeanne McCann’s declaration.
The ruling affected Nuance’s witnesses and testimony, including statements by Ricci, Bloom, and McCann, and granted IBM’s request to exclude the challenged hearsay testimony. It also struck Jeanne McCann’s declaration.
What happened
In Nuance Communications, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, IBM asked the court to exclude three statements in testimony declarations by Nuance witnesses Ricci, Bloom, and McCann. The statements described what other people told the witnesses IBM had said about providing Nuance with updates.
The court found that the statements contained two layers of out-of-court statements, known as hearsay within hearsay. Although some exceptions applied to IBM’s alleged statements, none applied to the other people’s statements, so the combined statements could not be admitted.
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno granted IBM’s motion to strike the hearsay testimony and separately ordered that Jeanne McCann’s declaration be stricken, consistent with Nuance’s letter.
The detailed version
- Nuance Communications, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation · No. 7:16-cv-05173
- Robreno
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
IBM moved to strike three statements in direct-testimony declarations by Nuance witnesses Ricci, Bloom, and McCann. Each statement involved the witnesses’ testimony that other people had told them IBM assured those people that Nuance would receive updates. Nuance opposed the motion and argued that the statements were admissible under several provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The order also states that, consistent with Nuance’s Letter, the Declaration of Jeanne McCann was to be stricken.
Court’s analysis
The court treated the statements as hearsay within hearsay: one out-of-court statement by another person about a second out-of-court statement allegedly made by IBM. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 805, each part of a combined statement must satisfy an exception to the hearsay rule.
The court concluded that Nuance’s arguments addressed only IBM’s alleged statements, not the separate statements made by the unaffiliated people who purportedly reported what IBM said. Rule 801(d)(2) made IBM’s statements non-hearsay for the relevant purpose, but it did not affect the other people’s statements. Likewise, the court said those other statements were offered to prove that IBM actually made the alleged assurances. Rule 803(3) could apply to IBM statements about what IBM intended to do, but not to statements about the other individuals’ memories or beliefs. The court also rejected Nuance’s reliance on Rule 804(b)(1), explaining that none of the offered statements was made during a deposition or other testimony covered by that rule.
Ruling
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno ordered that IBM’s Motion to Strike Hearsay Testimony was GRANTED. The court also ordered that the Declaration of Jeanne McCann was STRICKEN. The opinion does not state a separate disposition for IBM’s motion to file a reply.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.