Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05706/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05706-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GREGORY McKENNA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AVAYA, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:09-CV-05706 PVT

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT

AVAYA INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY

PLAINTIFF GREGORY McKENNA IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Defendant Avaya, Inc. (“ Avaya”) objects to evidence submitted by Plaintiff Gregory

McKenna (“McKenna”) in support of Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. On February

23, 2010, the parties appeared for a hearing. Having reviewed the papers and considered the

arguments of counsel,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is DENIED as follows. 

Defendant objects to two pieces of evidence Plaintiff submitted in support of his motion for

partial summary judgment.

I. Declaration of Gregory McKenna

Exhibit 1 to the McKenna Declaration is an email sent to Pat McCullough wherein Mr. Ill 

states, “[p]er our conversation, when Greg Mckenna was hired, we agreed to give him a one year

severance package if he should be asked to leave Avaya for reasons other than cause.” 

Defendant objects to this declaration and Exhibit 1 based on lack of personal knowledge of

Case 5:09-cv-05706-PVT Document 27 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER, page 2

the Declarant (Mr. McKenna), lack of authentication and relevance, and hearsay. 

Plaintiff responds that he does have personal knowledge of his email, as he received it in his

inbox from Mr. Ill. Plaintiff asserts that the document can be authenticated according to the Federal

Rules of Evidence 901(b)(1). Additionally, Plaintiff states that the document is not be offered to

prove the validity of the statements made thereon, but simply to show that the statements were made. 

Whether these objections are sustained or overruled does not change the outcome of the

partial summary judgment as to the fifth affirmative defense, and thus the court declines to rule on

them at this time.

II. Declaration of James P. Keenley

In this declaration, Defendant’s Force Management Program was attached as an exhibit.

As Plaintiff correctly noted, this objection is moot as Defendant filed its own Declaration

with a substantially identical document. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/9/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:09-cv-05706-PVT Document 27 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2