Opinion
00 Civ. 4763 (RMB) (JCF).
September 5, 2006
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
IPC Communications, Inc. ("IPC"), a defendant in this litigation, has moved for reconsideration of the August 1, 2006, Order granting defendants' motion to strike in part and denying it in part. IPC contends that the Court erred in finding that the plaintiffs authenticated a memorandum titled "Intra-Office Memo," submitted in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The document is attached to the Declaration of John E. Andrews as Exhibit 11.
There is no dispute about the identification of the document. The parties agree that Arnold Johnsen, who was executive vice president of an IPC business division, wrote the memo and sent it on September 9, 1998, to Richard Kleinknecht, a director of the company. Indeed, IPC proffered a declaration from Mr. Johnsen as part of its motion to strike, attesting to the origin and identification of the memorandum. (Declaration of Arnold Johnsen, attached as Exh. 2 to Declaration of Richard S. Goldstein in Support of Defendants' Motion to Strike, ¶¶ 3-8). To the degree that there is a dispute, it is over the corporate affiliations of IPC. The plaintiffs allege that IPC and Kleinknecht Electric are related to one another through Richard Kleinknecht. IPC contends that the organizations are completely distinct and asserts that the plaintiffs' characterization of the memorandum as a communication between two entities is plainly contradicted by the memorandum's title, "Intra-Office Memo." This dispute, which may go to the legal significance of the memorandum and its weight as evidence, does not implicate its authenticity. For this reason, IPC's motion for reconsideration is granted but I adhere to my determination as to admissibility.
SO ORDERED.