they are trustworthy under some exception to the rule….” Id. at 155-56 (filed “that under seal). The admission of the documents into evidence was subject to the Postal Service’s right to file a motion to strike by June 23, 2010. Id. at 666 (filed under seal). The Postal Service did not file a motion to strike. P.O. Ruling C-2009-1/24, Presiding Officer’s Ruling Granting, in Part, Postal Service’s Acting pursuant to rule 30(e)(3) of the Motion for Institutional Witness, July 6, 2010. Commission’s rules of practice, the Presiding Officer ordered GameFly to produce an institutional witness to stand cross-examination on the written cross-examination previously designated by the Postal Service at the June 16, 2010 hearing. P.O. Ruling C2009-1/24 at 9. In so, the Presiding Officer limited the Postal Service’s opportunity to cross-examine in the following respects: Cross-examination was denied with respect to legal conclusions in the GameFly Memorandum. Id at 12. was denied regarding the authenticity of the documents cited in the GameFly Memorandum or the application of the rule to those documents. Cross-examination was permitted with respect to GameFly’s interpretation of documents cited in its institutional discovery responses, including documents that were also cited in the GameFly Memorandum. Id. Cross-examination regarding GameFly’s business decisions was limited to decisions referenced in those GameFly discovery responses that related to the effects of theft, loss, or breakage of DVDs on GameFly’s mailpiece design. Id. at 13. Cross-examine was denied with respect to transportation cost information that GameFly did not possess. Id. at 13-14. Cross-examination regarding special Netflix mail drops and signage for Netflix returns was limited to factual contentions or inferences drawn by GameFly in its institutional discovery responses. Id. at 14.
“that they are trustworthy under some exception to the rule….” Id. at 155-56 (filed under seal). The admission of the documents into evidence was subject to the Postal Service’s right to file a motion to strike by June 23, 2010. Id. at 666 (filed under seal). The Postal Service did not file a motion to strike. P.O. Ruling C-2009-1/24, Presiding Officer’s Ruling Granting, in Part, Postal Service’s Motion for Institutional Witness, July 6, 2010. Acting pursuant to rule 30(e)(3) of the Commission’s rules of practice, the Presiding Officer ordered GameFly to produce an institutional witness to stand cross-examination on the written cross-examination previously designated by the Postal Service at the June 16, 2010 hearing. P.O. Ruling C2009-1/24 at 9. In so, the Presiding Officer limited the Postal Service’s opportunity to cross-examine in the following respects: Cross-examination was denied with respect to legal conclusions in the GameFly Memorandum. Id at 12. was denied regarding the authenticity of the documents cited in the GameFly Memorandum or the application of the rule to those documents. Cross-examination was permitted with respect to GameFly’s interpretation of documents cited in its institutional discovery responses, including documents that were also cited in the GameFly Memorandum. Id. Cross-examination regarding GameFly’s business decisions was limited to decisions referenced in those GameFly discovery responses that related to the effects of theft, loss, or breakage of DVDs on GameFly’s mailpiece design. Id. at 13. Cross-examine was denied with respect to transportation cost information that GameFly did not possess. Id. at 13-14. Cross-examination regarding special Netflix mail drops and signage for Netflix returns was limited to factual contentions or inferences drawn by GameFly in its institutional discovery responses. Id. at 14.
Order_No_718.docx