Evan Schuman's StorefrontBacktalk

“Best Buy argues that Ortiz’s declaration is inadmissible hearsay and should be rejected. (Best Buy) is mistaken. Ortiz’s testimony is not hearsay. Ortiz testifies about his own experience as a Best Buy supervisor, his interactions with other Best Buy employees and what he was taught and told by his superiors.”

In another example, McMahon talks about Best Buy’s opposition to one of the plaintiffs’ case, on the rationale that his product didn’t qualify for the price match. Said the judge: “This argument is without any merit. As the plaintiff points out, there is a certain amount of irony in the fact that the defendant continues to try to deny that plaintiff had a valid price match despite being confronted with undisputed evidence to the contrary. As plaintiff puts it, ‘Best Buy’s anti-price match policy is so engrained at a corporate level that, even through counsel, they attempt to build a case against the price match.'”

In a footnote, the judge was even more blunt: “Either a person met the objective criteria for a price match or he did not. Best Buy’s policy does not say that even when a customer meets all of the publicly-stated price match requirements, he may be denied a price match for some ‘other’ unstated reason. Best Buy’s attempt to introduce this type of subjective inquiry into the class smacks of the exact type of gamesmanship that is at the heart of the plaintiff’s lawsuit.”