Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): complaint belies this assertion. Paragraph 96 of plaintiffs’ complaint reads, [plaintiff's have alleged the foregoing based upon the investigation of their counsel, which included a review of SGI’s SEC filings, securities analysts reports and advisories about the Company, press releases issued by the Company, media reports about the Company and discussions with consultants, and believe that substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth in ¶¶ 1, 4-15, 19, 27-43, 46, 49-50, 53, 56, 58-70, 72-82, 84, and 87 after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. Because the sources set forth in paragraph 96 do not provide plaintiffs with personal knowledge, the complaint must be based on information and belief — that is the only alternative. See Wool, 818 F.2d at 1439 (<HOLDING>). The degree of specificity required by the SRA 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that declarations on information and belief are not entitled weight for summary judgment proceedings where the declarant lacks personal knowledge (B) holding that plaintiffs may plead on information and belief if matters are not within their personal knowledge (C) holding that it was proper for court to rely on affidavits of defendants representatives in negotiations because their personal knowledge and competence to testify are reasonably inferred from their positions and the nature of their participation in the matters to which they swore (D) holding that jurors do not need expert testimony on matters of common knowledge (E) holding that lay testimony is competent if it is limited to matters that the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of the witnesss personal knowledge
Output (English): holding that jurors do not need expert testimony on matters of common knowledge