ORDER
DANIEL P. JORDAN, III, District Judge.
This consolidated action is before the Court for ruling on various objections to deposition testimony. The matter is set for a bench trial beginning August 4, 2014. At the parties' request, the Court agreed to review 25 deposition transcripts before trial. This Order provides the Court's rulings on the parties' objections to the designated text.
I. Standards
The Federal Rules of Evidence obviously apply to bench trials. But in such trials, "[s]trict evidentiary rules of admissibility are generally relaxed . . . as appellate courts assume that trial judges rely upon properly admitted and relevant evidence." Null v. Wainwright, 508 F.2d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 1975). For that reason, "the district judge is entitled to greater latitude in evidentiary rulings," which will be reversed "only where they affect a substantial right of the complaining party." Moorhead v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Int'l, Inc., 828 F.2d 278, 287 (5th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also Stephenson v. Salisbury, 967 F.2d 1069, 1074 (5th Cir. 1992) (applying abuse of discretion analysis to court's evidentiary rulings, and noting the "great latitude allowed in the conduct of a bench trial").
II. Analysis
Due to the number of objections, this Order does not provide analysis for all of the rulings. That said, there are several broad principles that have been generally followed.
A. General Observations
1. Rule 602 and Lack of Foundation/Speculation
The parties frequently object based on "lack of foundation" or "speculation." But it is difficult to tell whether the objections are substantive or based on the form of the question. The distinction is important because some—but not all—of the depositions include the "usual stipulations" preserving objections except as to form. Other depositions do not mention the stipulations, but it seems clear that the parties operated under that assumption.1 So objections to form are waived if not raised during the deposition whereas substantive objections are not.
The purpose of the so-called "usual stipulations" is to force an objection to the form of a question where the issue can be corrected during the deposition. And it appears that a number of the "lack-of-foundation" and "speculation" objections in this case are coupled with Rule 602 objections that could have been easily remedied with a timely objection. These objections were waived if not preserved.
Other objections to "lack of foundation" and "speculation" do not seem to turn on a lack of personal knowledge—if they do, then they are frivolous—but instead suggest that the witness did not explain the basis for the answer. Those objections often go to weight, and the parties were free to address the issues on cross-examination.
For these reasons, many of the "lack-of-foundation" and "speculation" objections have been overruled. That said, there were times when the witness revealed a lack of personal knowledge or a lack of a factual basis for the testimony. Those objections were generally sustained unless the testimony was considered for some other purpose.
Also with respect to Rule 602, the parties at times objected because the witness equivocated, though he or she appeared to otherwise possess personal knowledge about the topic. One treatise on evidence states that the "trial judge must admit testimony even though the witness is not positive about what he or she perceived, provided the witness had an opportunity to observe and obtain some impression . . . ." Joseph W. Cotchett, Federal Courtroom Evidence § 602, 12-15 (5th ed. 2013); see also United States v. Sinclair, 109 F.3d 1527, 1536 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that Rule 602 "does not require that the witness' knowledge be positive or rise to the level of absolute certainty. Evidence is inadmissible only if in the proper exercise of the trial court's discretion it finds that the witness could not have actually perceived or observed that which he testifies to" (citation and punctuation omitted)). Such objections were generally overruled.
2. Rule 403
All Rule 403 objections based on unfair prejudice have been overruled. As stated by the Fifth Circuit in Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Ecodyne Corp., "[t]his portion of Rule 403 has no logical application to bench trials." 635 F.2d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 1981). The Court must necessarily hear the evidence to issue a ruling, and it is capable of separating the unduly prejudicial nature of otherwise relevant testimony.
3. Rule 402
Both parties raise numerous relevance objections. Some were sustained, but most were not. As a practical matter, the Court agreed as a courtesy to review this material before trial, but at this stage it is difficult to tell what is relevant. The Court is therefore reluctant to exclude evidence on the mere mention of relevance for fear that the context will become clearer on a more complete record. And given the extent of deposition designations and the substantial number of objections, it is not practical to go back and reread all of the depositions after the trial to reevaluate relevance objections.2 Once the evidence is received, the Court will give it the weight, if any, it deserves. As observed in Null, the final judgment will be based on relevant evidence. Finally, despite this general approach, there were instances where the objection was sustained because the context was clear.
4. Rule 802
The parties made a fair number of hearsay objections for which there did not appear to be an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Those were overruled. They also objected to questions referencing the witness's prior testimony on hearsay grounds, but those were overruled under Rule 801(d)(1)(A). Finally, there were some out-of-court statements that were received into evidence because there was an exception or the evidence was not considered for its truth.
5. Authenticity
There are objections throughout the depositions based on authenticity, but those objections are a little unclear. In most instances, the objections arise when a witness is asked about a document, and the objection is usually coupled with another objection like "lack of personal knowledge." The Court cannot tell whether the party is objecting to the extent it believes the testimony is intended to authenticate the document for admission into evidence at trial or because the witness is supposedly being asked about an unauthenticated document. To further complicate the review, many of the documents that drew these type objections have been used in multiple depositions, often without objection, and the parties have taken inconsistent positions with respect to their authenticity. Given the number of depositions, exhibits, and the differing exhibit numbers given to the same documents, it is not possible to attempt a thorough cross-reference to determine whether the documents have been otherwise authenticated.3 At this point, the Court has generally overruled the authentication objections.4
6. Miscellaneous
Some designations reflect statements from attorneys that give context to the exhibits or the line of questioning. Though not admitted or considered as substantive evidence, such exchanges were sometimes allowed to provide clarity. In addition, there were objections to designations that reflected bickering between counsel or between counsel and a witness. Some of these conversations were struck, but others were allowed because again they provided context or reflected on a witness's credibility.
B. Specific Rulings
The following tables include the rulings, the disputed pages, and the parties' objections. The first two columns quote the objections as the parties raised them:
1. Scott Brown (10/4/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
52:2-6 Hearsay; Best evidence rule Sustained.
90:16-20 Hearsay Overruled; Federal Rule of Evidence
803(3).
146:7-16 Lacks foundation; Speculation; Not Overruled to extent the response is
based on personal knowledge based on the witness's perception.
180:4-16 Hearsay Overruled.
196:18-19 Attorney statement without testimony Overruled.
197:11-14 Hearsay; Best evidence rule Sustained.
202:17-204:2 Lacks foundation, Speculation, Overruled; goes to the weight of the
Assumes facts not in evidence; not testimony.
based on personal knowledge
207:14-208:1 Irrelevant; ambiguous Overruled.
213:14-18 Leading Overruled.
215:1-11 Legal conclusion Overruled, though not considered as
a legal conclusion.
221:6-18 Lack of foundation Overruled.
224:12-14 Attorney statement without testimony Sustained.
232:7-20 Hearsay; best evidence rule Sustained.
236:25-237:8 Lacks personal knowledge, No Overruled.
foundation, speculation
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 12, L. 20 Incomplete Designation Sustained.
P. 13, L. 12 Incomplete Designation Sustained.
P. 14, L. 16-25 Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 15, L. 1-6 Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 33, L. 13-17 Lack of Foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 34, L. 11-25 Lack of Foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 35, L. 1-11 Lack of Foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 36, L. 2-14 Lack of Foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 37, L. 4-9 Lack of Foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 38, L. 8-17 Lack of Foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 38, L. 22-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 39, L. 1-2 Relevance Overruled.
P. 39, L. 5-19 Lack of Foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 39, L. 23-25 Lack of Personal Knowledge Overruled.
P. 40, L. 1-15 Lack of Personal Knowledge Overruled.
P. 42, L. 3-6 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance
P. 42, L. 9-14 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance
P. 42, L. 22-25 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance
P. 43, L. 1-25 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance
P. 44, L. 1 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance
P. 44, L. 12-22 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Lack Overruled as it relates to the
of Authentication witness's knowledge.
P. 45, L. 6-9 Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 45, L. 10-21 Inadmissible Expert Opinion, Lack Overruled.
of
Personal Knowledge
P. 47, L. 2-7 Relevance Overruled.
P. 48, L. 1-5 Lack of Personal Knowledge Overruled.
P. 48, L. 6-21 Relevance, Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 52, L. 16-20 Relevance Overruled.
P. 54, L. 7-25 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled as it relates to the
Personal, Knowledge, Hearsay, witness's knowledge
Relevance
P. 55, L. 4-6 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Lack Overruled.
of Foundation
P. 56, L. 15-22 Hearsay Sustained if the document is not
otherwise in evidence.
P. 56, L. 14-25 Lack of Foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 57, L. 17-25 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Sustained if the document is not
Hearsay otherwise in evidence; overruled as
to 58:12-59:8 under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3).
P. 58, L. 1-25 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Sustained if the document is not
Hearsay otherwise in evidence; overruled as
to 58:12-59:8 under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3).
P. 59, L. 1-8 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Sustained if the document is not
Hearsay otherwise in evidence; overruled as
to 58:12-59:8 under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3).
P. 59, L. 13-25 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
Hearsay
P. 60, L. 1-6 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
Hearsay
P. 60, L. 17-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 61, L. 1 Relevance Overruled.
P. 61, L. 17-25 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge
P. 62, L. 1-25 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge, Hearsay
P. 63, L. 1-3 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge, Hearsay
P. 64, L. 20-25 Relevance, Lack of Personal Sustained if the document is not
Knowledge, Hearsay otherwise in evidence.
P. 65, L. 1-5 Relevance, Lack of Personal Sustained if the document is not
Knowledge, Hearsay otherwise in evidence.
P. 66, L. 3-6 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 70, L. 18-25 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 71, L. 1 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 71, L. 15-23 Lack of Personal Knowledge Overruled.
P. 78, L. 2-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 79, L. 1-10 Relevance Overruled.
P. 79, L. 24-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 80, L. 1-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 81, L. 1-4 Relevance Overruled.
P. 81, L. 25 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge
P. 82, L. 1-3 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge
P. 86, L. 3-25 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled. The passage sets the
Knowledge, Lack of Authentication, predicate for the question on 87.
Lack of Foundation
P. 87, L. 1-9 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge, Lack of Authentication,
Lack of Foundation
P. 91, L. 15-23 Hearsay, Relevance Overruled.
P. 94, L. 8-9 Hearsay, Relevance Overruled.
P. 94, L. 13-25 Hearsay, Relevance Overruled.
P. 95, L. 1-22 Relevance Overruled.
P. 96, L. 9-25 Relevance, Lack of Authentication Overruled.
P. 97, L. 1-4, 6 Relevance, Lack of Authentication Overruled.
P. 97, L. 10-25 Relevance, Lack of Authentication Overruled.
P. 98, L. 1-6 Relevance, Lack of Authentication Overruled.
P. 99, L. 6-25 Relevance, Lack of Authentication Overruled.
P. 100, L. 1-20 Relevance, Lack of Authentication Overruled.
P. 101, L. 5-13 Relevance Overruled.
P. 103, L. 7-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
P. 104, L. 1-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication
P. 105, L. 1-18 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication
P. 106, L. 23-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Hearsay
P. 107, L. 1-3 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Hearsay
P. 107, L. 13-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Hearsay
P. 108, L. 1-11 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Personal Knowledge
P. 108, L. 21-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication
P. 110, L. 11-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication
P. 111, L. 1-5 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication
P. 116, L. 11-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 117, L. 1-17 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 117, L. 24-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 118, L. 1-5 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 120, L. 16-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 121, L. 1-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 122, L. 1-12 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 123, L. 16-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 124, L. 1-7 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 125, L. 22-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Personal Knowledge
P. 126, L. 1-10 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Personal Knowledge
P. 126, L. 14-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 127, L. 1-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 128, L. 1-8 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 128, L. 11-16 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 128, L. 23-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Lack of Authentication, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 129, L. 1-5 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Relevance, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 129, L. 9-13 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Relevance, Lack of
Personal Knowledge
P. 138, L. 13-16 Relevance Overruled.
P. 139, L. 2-5 Relevance Overruled.
P. 140, L. 6-25 Legal Conclusion Overruled, although not considered
as a legal conclusion.
P. 141, L. 1-6 Legal Conclusion Overruled, although not considered
as a legal conclusion.
P. 148, L. 17-21 Relevance Overruled because it clarifies
testimony on 146 to which Plaintiffs
object.
P. 148, L. 22-25 Legal Conclusion Overruled, although not considered
as a legal conclusion.
P. 149, L. 1-25 Legal Conclusion, Relevance, Lack Overruled.
of Personal Knowledge
P. 150, L. 1-5 Legal Conclusion, Relevance, Lack Overruled.
of Personal Knowledge
P. 151, L. 16-20 Incomplete Designation Sustained.
P. 152, L. 1-5 Inadmissible Expert Opinion, Lack Overruled.
of Personal Knowledge, Relevance
P. 163, L. 5-9 Relevance Overruled.
P. 166, L. 2-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 167, L. 1-6 Relevance Overruled.
P. 199, L. 14-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 200, L. 75 Relevance Overruled.
P. 233, L. 14-16 Lack of Foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 240, L. 22-25 Relevance, Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 241, L. 1-23 Relevance, Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 246, L. 2-25 Relevance Not designated.
P. 247, L. 2-22 Relevance Not designated.
2. Thomas Beaudreau (11/18/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
12:4-15:4:1-116 Irrelevant Overruled.
42:2-4 Attorney statement without Overruled. This is a compound
testimony question, but there was no
contemporaneous objection.
43:5-44:6 Irrelevant Overruled.
51:12-23 Hearsay; speculation; Lack Overruled.
Personal Knowledge; Lack of
foundation
53:23-54:1 Hearsay; speculation; Lack Overruled.
Personal Knowledge; Lack of
foundation
91:1-16 Irrelevant; Lack Personal Overruled.
Knowledge; speculation
101:24-102:10 Lack Personal Knowledge; Lack of Overruled with respect to DirecTV's
foundation; speculation intent, but otherwise sustained under
Rule 602.
103:5-15 Irrelevant; Lack of foundation Sustained with respect to Bruister
and Associates; overruled regarding
the witness's own experience.
133:25-134:17 Irrelevant Overruled.
192:4-193:1 Irrelevant Overruled.
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 32, L. 18-25 Inadmissible Expert Opinion Sustained.
P. 33, L. 1-6 Inadmissible Expert Opinion Sustained.
P. 60, L. 11-25 Lack of Foundation, Hearsay Overruled under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3).
P. 61, L. 1-8 Inadmissible Expert Opinion Overruled under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3).
P. 61, L. 15-25 Lack of Foundation, Inadmissible Overruled.
Expert Opinion
P. 62, L. 1-8 Lack of Foundation, Inadmissible Overruled.
Expert Opinion
P. 65, L. 19-25 Lack of Foundation, Inadmissible Overruled as to 65:19-22;
Expert Opinion sustained as to 65:23-66:22.
P. 66, L. 1-22 Lack of Foundation, Inadmissible Sustained as to 65:23-66:22.
Expert Opinion
P. 75, L. 10-13 Lack of Foundation, Inadmissible Overruled.
Expert Opinion
P. 77, L. 5-15 Lack of Foundation, Hearsay Overruled as a statement of a party
opponent.
P. 141, L. 19-25 Inadmissible Expert Opinion Overruled.
P. 142, L 1-4 Inadmissible Expert Opinion Overruled.
P. 154, L. 14-25 Lack of Foundation, Inadmissible Overruled. He was an officer
Expert Opinion, Relevance describing his company.
P. 155, L. 1-9 Lack of Foundation, Inadmissible Overruled. He was an officer
Expert Opinion, Relevance describing his company.
P. 156, L. 3-25 Lack of Foundation, Inadmissible Overruled.
Expert Opinion, Relevance
P. 158, L. 18-24 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 160, L. 15-25 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 161, L. 1-5 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Relevance, Inadmissible Expert
Opinion
P. 161, L. 14-18 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Relevance, Inadmissible Expert
Opinion
P. 183, L. 18-23 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 184, L. 12-14 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance,
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 186, L. 5-25 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance,
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 187, L. 1-4 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance,
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 187, L. 5-10 Hearsay Overruled under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3).
P. 187, L. 11-25 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance,
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 188, L. 1-7 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance,
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 193, L. 18-24 Hearsay Overruled.
P. 193, L. 24 Inadmissible Expert Opinion Overruled.
P. 194, L. 1-3 Inadmissible Expert Opinion Overruled.
P. 214, L. 12-25 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 215, L. 1-3 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 215, L. 10-14 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 215, L. 17-25 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Overruled.
Inadmissible Expert Opinion,
Hearsay
P. 219, L. 13-21 Lack of Personal Knowledge, Sustained.
Inadmissible Expert Opinion, Lack
of
Foundation
3. Todd Bartlett (10/5/11)
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 9, L. 9-25 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Relevance
P. 10, L. 1-14 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Relevance
P. 11, L. 9-25 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Relevance
P. 12, L. 1-14 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled. The information appears
Foundation, Relevance relevant, and the lack of
authentication/foundation
objections are not clear.7
P. 14, L. 23-25 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation, Relevance
P. 15, L. 1-22 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation, Relevance
P. 15, L. 23-24 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 16, L. 7-12 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 18, L. 7-13 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 20, L. 11-15 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 20, L. 22-25 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 21, L. 1-9 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 22, L. 10-13 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 22, L. 16-25 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 23, L. 1-6 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 24, L. 8-11 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Foundation
P. 25, L. 1-25 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 26, L. 1-9 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 29, L. 10-19 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
4. Steven Crawford (10/5/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection
127:16-21 Non-testimony statement of attorney; Overruled. There was no objection
Hearsay, Lack personal knowledge, to the answer.
Lack Foundation
129:10-17 Non-testimony statement of Overruled.
attorney; Hearsay, Lack personal
knowledge, Lack Foundation
131:24-132:6 Non-testimony statement of Overruled.
attorney; Hearsay, Lack personal
knowledge, Lack Foundation
132:16-23 Non-testimony statement of Overruled.
attorney; Hearsay, Lack personal
knowledge, Lack Foundation
135:7-16 Vague/Ambiguous; Lack foundation Overruled.
135:17-25 Lack Foundation; Speculation Overruled.
148:22-149:14 Lack Foundation; Lack personal Overruled.
knowledge
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 10, L.9-18 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge
P. 11, L. 19-25 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
Lack of Personal Knowledge
P. 12, L. 1-13 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
Lack of Personal Knowledge
P. 13, L. 19-25 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
Lack of Personal Knowledge, Legal
Conclusion
P. 14, L. 1-2 Lack of Foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
Lack of Personal Knowledge, Legal
Conclusion
P. 15, L. 2-12 Relevance Overruled.
P. 16, L. 15-18 Relevance Overruled.
P. 21, L. 1-9 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Overruled.
Personal Knowledge, Relevance,
Legal Conclusion
P. 24, L. 12-18 Nonresponsive Sustained.
P. 27, L. 25 Incomplete Designation Overruled.
P. 28, L. 1-5 Incomplete Designation Overruled.
P. 28, L. 6-13 Lack of Personal Knowledge Overruled.
P. 30, L. 17-23 of Personal Knowledge Overruled.
P. 31, L. 3-8 Lack of Authentication, Sustained. The cited lines do not
Inadmissible Expert Opinion, Lack contain any witness testimony.
of Personal Knowledge
P. 31, L. 20-25 Lack of Authentication, Sustained, and in any event, all the
Inadmissible Expert Opinion, Lack witness does is agree to what the
of Personal Knowledge document says. The document
speaks for itself.
P. 32, L. 1-3 Lack of Authentication, Same.
Inadmissible Expert Opinion, Lack
of Personal Knowledge
P. 32, L. 11-14 Lack of Authentication, Same.
Inadmissible Expert Opinion, Lack
of Personal
Knowledge
P. 32, L. 18-25 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Personal Knowledge
P. 33, L. 1 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Personal Knowledge
P. 33, L. 7-12 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Personal Knowledge
P. 33, L. 18-23 Lack of Authentication, Lack of Same.
Personal Knowledge
P. 34, L. 3-8 Lack of Authentication, Same.
Inadmissible Expert Opinion
P. 35, L. 13-17 Relevance, Lack of Authentication Same.
P. 35, L. 20-25 Lack of Personal Knowledge Overruled through 35:24.
P. 36, L. 1-13 Lack of Personal Knowledge Sustained.
P. 41, L. 5-12 Relevance Overruled.
P. 41, L. 5-258 Relevance Overruled.
P. 42, L. 1-12 Relevance Overruled.
P. 42, L. 18-24 Relevance Overruled.
P. 50, L. 9-25 Relevance, Hearsay Overruled.
P. 51, L. 1-17 Relevance, Hearsay Overruled.
P. 52, L. 8-11 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge
P. 58, L. 24-25 Relevance, Hearsay Overruled.
P. 59, L. 1-19 Relevance, Hearsay Overruled.
P. 59, L. 20-25 Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 60, L. 1-7 Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 61, L. 4-8 Relevance Overruled.
P. 73, L. 22-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 74, L. 1-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 75, L. 1-3 Relevance Overruled.
P. 76, L. 16-20 Relevance, Hearsay Overruled under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3).
P. 77, L. 5-15 Relevance, Hearsay, Inadmissible Overruled under Federal Rule of
Expert Opinion Evidence 803(3).
P. 98, L. 20-24 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge
P. 121, L. 14-22 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge
P. 130, L. 12-19 Incomplete Designation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 152, L. 21-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 153, L. 1-4 Relevance Overruled.
5. Matthew Donnelly-Perez Transcript — Vol. I (5/10/11)
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 88, 1. 4- Hearsay Overruled.
P. 90, L. 15
P. 98, L. 11- Relevance, Cumulative Overruled.
P.106, L. 7
P. 116, L. 7-18 Relevance, 403, Cumulative Sustained as cumulative.
P. 118, L. 9- Relevance, 403, Cumulative Sustained as cumulative.
P. 119, L. 22
P. 125, L. 4-15 Relevance, 403, Cumulative Overruled.
P. 130, L. 24- Relevance, 403, Cumulative Sustained as cumulative.
P. 131, L. 23
P. 133, L. 3- Relevance, 403, Cumulative Sustained through 134:8 as
P. 135, L. 22 cumulative.
6. Matthew Donnelly-Perez Transcrip — Vol. II (5/11/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
243:6-243:8 Hearsay as to what Abrahams said Sustained.
261:4-261:24 Hearsay as to contents of draft Overruled as to 261:19-24; otherwise
reports sustained.
262:14-263:8, Hearsay as to contents of draft Overruled, but the Court may need to
reports hear from the parties. If the draft
reports are not in evidence, then why
would they not fall under Federal
Rules of Evidence 803(3) and
803(6)? Both parties appear to cite
from these documents.
263:18-264:23 Hearsay as to contents of draft Same.
reports
297:20-299:6 Hearsay as to contents of draft Same.
reports
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 275, L. 10-20 Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 285, L. 3- Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 286, L. 13
P. 293, L., 5-19 Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 330, L. 7- Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 331, L. 20
P. 347, L. 22- Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 348, L. 24
7. Matthew Donnelly-Perez Transcript — Vol. III (5/12/11)
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 386, L. 25- Lack of foundation Overruled.
P. 387, L. 8
P. 471, L. 10-15 Lack of foundation Overruled.
P. 483, L. 13- Lack of foundation, Hearsay, Overruled.
P. 484, L. 6 Confusing
P. 488, l. 11-18 Lack of foundation, Hearsay, Partial, Overruled.
Incomplete designation
P. 490, L. 13- Lack of foundation, Improper Overruled.
P. 492-, L. 21 impeachment attempt
P. 544, L. 10-23 Lack of foundation (no Overruled.
establishment of time, Place, or
context)
8. Matthew Donnelly-Perez Transcript — Vol. IV (1/20/12)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection
581:13-581:19 Hearsay (as to statements by Overruled under Federal Rule of
Bumstead and Abraham) Evidence 803(3).
590:10-590:12 Hearsay (as to Bruce's statements) Overruled under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3).
590:17-590:21 Impermissible lay opinion (Lacks Sustained.
personal knowledge.)
631:10-631:22 Impermissible lay opinion (Lacks Sustained as to 631:19-22; otherwise,
personal knowledge.) overruled.
9. Matthew Donnelly-Perez Transcript — Vol. V (2/27/12)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection
804:6-806:5 Hearsay Overruled as to 804:6-805:25; the
statement is not offered for the truth
of the matter asserted and/or per
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3);
also overruled as to 806:1-5.
807:13-808:6 Hearsay Overruled under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3)
832:6-832:15, Hearsay (re Hans's response) Overruled, but the Court may need to
833:1-833:20 hear from the parties if the email is
not otherwise in evidence. It seems
this came in without objection in
another deposition.
847:10-848:3 Hearsay Same.
854:8-856:6 Hearsay Overruled. This testimony was
offered without objection by
Plaintiffs in another deposition.
879:25-880:5, Hearsay Overruled, but the Court may need to
880:7-880:16, hear from parties. Is the objection to
880:23-880:24 the document or the testimony
regarding why he did what he did
(879-80)? As to the testimony on
page 880, it seems like this is in
evidence already, used by Plaintiffs.
888:8-888:9, Vague, ambiguous Sustained as to 888:8-888:9;
888:11-888:13 overruled as to 888:11-888:13.
890:5-890:7 Lacks foundation re geography and Overruled.
competition
10. Matthew Donnelly-Rader Transcript — Vol. (3/1/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection
109:22 - 110:2 Leading, lacks foundation Sustained.
129:14 - 130:9 Lacks foundation, non-responsive Overruled.
135:6 - 135:17 Lacks foundation as to: "very Overruled. The Court has considered
competent computer programmer" the testimony to the extent it reflects
and "there's none better" the witness's opinion.
172:16 - 173:2 Lacks foundation Overruled. The Court has considered
the testimony to the extent it reflects
the witness's opinion.
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 47, L. 9- Relevance, 403, Cumulative Overruled.
P. 50, L. 13
P. 54, L. 6-P. Relevance, 403, Cumulative Overruled.
60 L. 14
P. 62, L. 11- Relevance, 403, Cumulative Overruled.
P. 63, L. 23
P. 72, L. 14- Relevance Sustained as to 72:14-21; otherwise
P. 73, L. 7 overruled.
P. 139, L. 5-22 Relevance Overruled.
11. Matthew Donnelly-Rader Transcript — Vol. II (3/2/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection
216:22-216:25 Lacks foundation as knowledge Overruled.
about other appraisers
227:14-228:22 Lacks foundation, hearsay Overruled. Whether or not it is true,
it is his basis.
238:20-239:10 Lacks foundation Same.
239:11-239:20 Lacks foundation Same.
239:21-240:4 Lacks foundation Same.
241:23-243:12 Lacks foundation, non-responsive Overruled.
290:21-201:10 Lacks foundation Overruled.
309:17-309:19 Lacks foundation Overruled.
317:16-317:7 Hearsay (as to what Bruister said) Overruled; the statement is not
considered for truth of the matter
asserted and is otherwise admissible
under Federal Rule of Evidence
803(3).
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 323, L. 12-23 Lack of foundation (no time Overruled.
established)
P. 344, L. 6- Relevance, Lack of foundation Overruled as to 344:14-345:5;
P. 346, L. 4 sustained as to 345:6-19;
overruled as to 345:20-246:2;
sustained as to 346:304; and 344:6-1
is not testimony.
P. 346, L. 25- Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 347, L. 8
P. 350, L. 12- Relevance, 403, Cumulative Overruled.
P. 356, L.2
P. 372, L. 24-25 Incomplete designation Sustained.
P. 397, L. 14- Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 398, L. 7
P. 399, L. 5-21 Lack of foundation Overruled.
P. 400, L. 8-22 Lack of foundation Overruled.
12. Matthew Donnelly-Rader Transcript — Vol. 3 (6/1/11)
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 417, L. 6-21 Cumulative Sustained.
P. 425, L. 15-21 Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 427, L. 10-20 Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled, but the exhibit [14]
should not be admitted.
P. 431, L. 16- Relevance, 403 Sustained.
P. 434, L. 19
P. 438, L. 15 Incomplete designation Sustained, and line 14 should be
included in the objection.
P. 468, L. 23- Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 470, L. 13
P. 522, L. 23- Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 529, L. 12
P. 530, L. 21, Lack of foundation, improper Overruled.
P. 531, L. 4 hypothetical
P. 533, L. 1-24 Lack of foundation, improper Overruled.
hypothetical, No identification of
"reports", Relevance as to Direct
Tech testimony
P. 573, L. 16- Lack of foundation, Relevance Sustained through 587:25,
P. 589, L. 8 (2001-2003 documents) overruled as to the rest.
13. Matthew Donnelly-Rader Transcript — Vol. 4 (6/2/11)
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 646, L. 6-14 Lack of foundation Overruled.
P. 662, L. 23, Lack of foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
P. 663, L. 19 Hearsay
P. 667, L. 22- Lack of foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
P. 670, L. 1 Hearsay
P. 670, L. 24- Lack of foundation, Relevance, Overruled.
P. 672, L. 5 Hearsay
14. Matthew Donnelly-Rader Transcript — Vol. V (10/20/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
742:12-25 Overruled as noted in transcript.
747:2-748:22 Leading, ambiguous as to Sustained through 748:6.
customary
756:12-756:18, Leading Sustained.
757:1-757:11
848:24- 849:3 Lacks foundation Sustained.
849:10-851:21 Lacks foundation Sustained as to 849:10-21; otherwise
overruled.
853:5-853:21 Lacks foundation Sustained.
863:19-863:21, Lacks foundation Overruled.
863:24-864:10
892:17-893:7 Lacks foundation Overruled.
P. 826, L. 23-25 Relevance Sustained.
P. 914, L. 23- Relevance Overruled.
P. 915, L. 17
P. 918, L. 5- Lack of foundation, Cumulative, Sustained at this point because the
P. 922, L. 24 Relevance Court cannot determine what the
witness is reviewing.
P. 926, L. 8-16 Lack of foundation, Relevance Sustained.
P. 931, L. 3- Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 933, L. 14
P. 934, L. 10-16 Lack of foundation, Relevance Overruled.
P. 941, L. 5, P. Lack of foundation, Relevance Sustained at this point because the
948, L. 19 Court cannot determine what the
witness is reviewing.
15. Matthew Donnelly-Rader Transcript — Vol. VI (10/21/11)
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 983, L. 22- Lack of foundation Overruled.
P. 985, L. 25
P. 1002, L. 1-4 Relevance Sustained.
P. 1009, L. 11- Hearsay, Relevance Overruled.
P. 1013, L. 15
P. 1071, L. 7- Relevance Sustained.
L. 1072, L. 20
P. 1072, L. Lack of foundation, Relevance If these exhibits are being offered
21- P. 1076, L. through Donnelly, then the objection
18 is sustained, but the testimony that he
never saw rate-related documents
from DirecTV is relevant and
admissible.
P. 1102, L. 17- Lack of foundation, Misleading Overruled, but the Court may need to
24 characterization hear from the parties because the
letter is no in this record and it is
therefore difficult to determine
whether anything was
mischaracterized. The Court will
consider the evidence that Donnelly
was not informed of problems with
DirecTV.
P. 1108, L. Lack of foundation, Misleading Same.
15-20 characterization
P. 1115, L. 18- Improper attempt to impeach, Lack Overruled.
P. 1118, L. 14 of foundation, Relevance, Hearsay
16. Matthew Donnelly-Rader Transcript — Vol. VII (1/19/12)
None
17. Keith Landenberger (2/27/12)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection
57:23-58:1 Hearsay The objection is taken under
advisement because it is not clear
which document is being discussed.
59:20-60:1 Attorney statement w/o witness Sustained.
testimony
63:19-21 Attorney statement w/o witness Sustained.
testimony
65:2-4 Attorney statement w/o witness Sustained.
testimony
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 17, L. 3-17 Relevance Overruled.
P. 17, L. 25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 18, L. 1-4 Relevance Overruled.
P. 18, L. 25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 19, L. 1-4 Relevance Overruled.
P. 19, L. 6-10 Relevance Overruled.
P. 20, L. 4-12 Relevance Overruled.
P. 20, L. 21-25 Relevance Overruled.
P. 21, L. 4-13 Relevance Overruled.
P. 21, L. 17-19 Relevance, Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 22, L. 2-7 Relevance, Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 23, L. 12-24 Relevance Overruled.
P. 24, L. 16-22 Relevance, Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 35, L. 14-17 Relevance, Lack of Personal Overruled.
Knowledge
P. 41, L. 14-23 Relevance, Legal Conclusion Overruled.
P. 44, L. 5-8 Relevance, Legal Conclusion Overruled.
18. Hans Schroeder(7/13/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
81:1-81:5 Attorney testimony, No factual Sustained.
testimony, mischaracterization of
testimony
83:1-83:5 Attorney testimony, No factual Overruled.
testimony, mischaracterization of
testimony
107:12-107:18 No factual testimony, lack of Overruled as to 107:12-15.
foundation
131:19-131:21 No factual testimony, attorney Sustained.
testimony, irrelevant, Rule 402
137:23-138:4 No factual testimony, attorney Sustained.
testimony, irrelevant, Rule 402
185:4-185:9 No factual testimony, attorney Sustained.
testimony, irrelevant, Rule 402
187:10-187:19 No factual testimony, attorney Sustained.
testimony, irrelevant, Rule 402
198:9-200:2 Irrelevant, Rule 402 Overruled to extent he says it is
similar to work with Matt Donnelly.
202:4-202:19 Irrelevant, Rule 402 Overruled.
203:10-206:25 Irrelevant, Rule 402 Sustained as to 204:3, 10; overruled
as to 205:3, 205:4-206:25
207:10-209:21 Irrelevant, Rule 402 Sustained.
222:25-224:8 Irrelevant, Rule 402 Overruled.
226:2-226:19 Irrelevant, Rule 402, speculative, Overruled.
ambiguous
P. 23, L. 4-13 Lack of Foundation, Speculation Overruled.
P. 30, L. 5-25 Hearsay, Speculation, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Relevance
P. 40, L. 20-22 Hearsay, Speculation, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 41, L. 25 Hearsay, Speculation, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 42, L. 1-12 Hearsay, Speculation, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 53, L. 25 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 54, L. 1-4 Lack of Foundation, Hearsay Overruled.
P. 60, L. 18-25 Lack of Foundation, Hearsay Overruled.
P. 61, L. 1-4 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 61, L. 18-25 Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 62, L. 1-15 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 62, L. 16-25 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled. The agreement is in
Attorney Testimony evidence and the witness can testify
about what he actually knew.
P. 63, L. 1-7 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
Attorney Testimony
P. 63, L. 8-16 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
Relevance
P. 65:10-66:3 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
Relevance, Impermissible Opinion
Testimony
P. 69:1-20 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 71:6-9 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
Relevance
P. 71:10-73:2 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
Relevance, Attorney Testimony,
Impermissible Hypothetical
P. 73:11-74:19 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
Relevance, Attorney Testimony,
Impermissible Hypothetical
P. 75:5-24 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled.
of Authentication
P. 77:11-14 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 80:2-20 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled.
of Authentication
P. 86:22-87:13 Relevance, Hearsay, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Incomplete Designation
P. 90:3-22 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled.
of Authentication, Speculation
Incomplete Designation, Misleading
P. 94:24-95:6 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 101:13-102:8 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 106:8-21 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Attorney Testimony
P. 120:10-19 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 122:19-24 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 124:3-125:1 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Attorney Testimony, Relevance
P. 152:21-24 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Attorney Testimony
P. 167:9-25 Relevance, Misleading Overruled.
P. 168:23-169:17 Lack of Foundation, Lack of Sustained.
Authentication
19. Hans Schroeder (7/14/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
250:18-252:10 Irrelevant Overruled.
252:23-253:5 Irrelevant Overruled.
253:14-253:17 Lack of foundation; Irrelevant & Overruled.
confusing (401, 403) Speculation
253:18-254:1 Irrelevant Overruled.
255:5-255:16 Irrelevant Overruled.
255:22-256:1 Irrelevant Overruled.
256:13-256:23 Irrelevant Overruled.
257:10-257:20 Irrelevant Sustained.
257:22-259:8 Calls for legal conclusion; Lack of Sustained.
foundation; Speculation; Lack of
personal knowledge
262:25-264:6 Expert opinion; Out of context and Sustained as to expert opinion.
confusing; Speculation; Lack of
foundation & personal knowledge
264:7-264:10 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403); Overruled.
Lack of foundation
265:22-266:9 Expert opinion; Irrelevant & Sustained as to expert opinion.
confusing (401, 403); Speculation;
Lack of foundation & personal
knowledge
267:14-267:25 Expert opinion; Irrelevant & Overruled.
confusing (401, 403); Speculation;
Lack of foundation & personal
knowledge
268:16-269:20 Expert opinion; Irrelevant & Sustained as to expert opinion.
confusing (401, 403); Speculation;
Lack of foundation & personal
knowledge
271:15-271:16 Expert opinion; Irrelevant & Overruled.
confusing (401, 403); Speculation;
Lack of foundation & personal
knowledge
274:15-274:21 Speculation; Lack of foundation & Overruled.
personal knowledge
274:22-274:23 Attorney statement without testimony Overruled.
275:3-275:5 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403) Overruled.
275:16-275:21 Lack of foundation Overruled.
277:13-278:1 Lack of foundation; Lack of personal Sustained.
knowledge; Calls for Speculation
279:5-279:10 Calls for speculation; Lack of Overruled.
foundation; Lack of personal
knowledge
279:23-280:1 Calls for speculation; Lack of Overruled.
foundation; Lack of personal
knowledge
280:11-280:15 Calls for speculation; Lack of Overruled. Similar testimony is
foundation; Lack of personal already in evidence.
knowledge
280:20-280:24 Calls for speculation; Lack of Overruled.
foundation; Lack of personal
knowledge
284:7-284:7 Calls for speculation; Lack of Overruled.
foundation; Lack of personal
knowledge
286:21-287:5 Calls for speculation Overruled.
286:21-287:5 Expert opinion; calls for speculation Overruled. The testimony explains
Plaintiffs' designation on page 287.
292:4-294:23 Calls for speculation; Lack of Sustained; there is no testimony
foundation; Lack of personal given in the selected passage.
knowledge
296:19-296:23 Calls for speculation; Lack of Overruled.
foundation; Lack of personal
knowledge
301:10-11 Calls for speculation; Lack of Sustained.
foundation; Lack of personal
knowledge
305:4-22 Legal conclusion & expert opinion; Sustained as an expert and legal
Out of context and confusing; calls conclusion.
for speculation
306:4-306:9 Attorney statement without testimony; Overruled.
Hearsay
309:7-16 Irrelevant Overruled.
310:13-3:11:4 Lack of foundation; Speculation; Sustained as to 310:13-16;
Lack of personal knowledge overruled as to 310:17-311:4.
312:9-312:15 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403); Overruled; door opened.
Lack of foundation; Speculation;
Lack of personal knowledge
314:23-315:11 Calls for speculation; Lack of Overruled.
foundation; Lack of personal
knowledge
315:18-316:4 Attorney statements without Sustained.
testimony
321:18-321:25 Attorney statements without Sustained; there is no testimony
testimony; Lack of foundation given in the selected passage.
322:3-322:11 Attorney statements without Sustained; there is no testimony
testimony; Lack of foundation given in the selected passage.
324:17-324:23 Calls for speculation; Lack of Overruled.
foundation; Lack of personal
knowledge
20. Hans Schroeder (2/24/12)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection
9:15-9:19 Irrelevant; Attorney statement Overruled.
without testimony
13:21-15:11 Irrelevant Overruled.
14:15-14:18 Attorney statement without Sustained.
testimony
15:4-15:11 Attorney statement without Sustained.
testimony
15:23-16:7 Irrelevant Overruled.
16:4-16:5 Attorney statement without Sustained.
testimony
16:11-16:17 Irrelevant Overruled.
16:14-16:16 Attorney statement without Sustained.
testimony
16:21-18:3 Irrelevant Overruled.
18:9-18:19 Irrelevant Overruled.
33:8-33:8 Attorney statement without Sustained.
testimony
35:7-35:24 Irrelevant Overruled.
35:16-25:17 Attorney statement without Sustained.
testimony.
36:8-36:12 Irrelevant Overruled.
39:9-40:2 Irrelevant Overruled.
39:24-46:5 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403); Overruled.
Hearsay; Lack of foundation;
Speculation; Lack of personal
knowledge
45:24-52:4 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403); Sustained as to 45:24-46:5, 48:6-14,
Hearsay; Lack of foundation; 48:19-49:2; otherwise overruled.
Speculation; Lack of personal
knowledge
52:2-52:4 Attorney statement without Overruled.
testimony
53:24-54:11 Hearsay; Lack of foundation Overruled.
54:22-54:25 Non-responsive answer; Irrelevant Overruled.
& confusing (401, 403)
56:12-57:3 Irrelevant Overruled.
57:21-58:14 Irrelevant Overruled.
59:1-59:17 Irrelevant Overruled.
59:12-59:14 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403) Overruled.
60:19-60:24 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403) Overruled.
61:6-62:22 Hearsay; Best evidence rule Sustained.
62:24-63:7 Hearsay; Best evidence rule Sustained.
67:6-67:14 Hearsay; Speculation; Lack of Sustained.
foundation; Lack of personal
knowledge
92:8-93:25 Irrelevant Sustained.
94:23-95:23 Irrelevant Overruled.
96:5-96:23 Irrelevant Overruled.
99:14-99:19 Attorney statement without Sustained.
testimony; Irrelevant
100:7-100:10 Lack of Foundation Overruled.
100:20-100:21 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403) Overruled.
103:5-103:9 Irrelevant Overruled.
103:12-105:15 Irrelevant Overruled through 105:7.
104:5-105:15 Argumentative; Harassing the Overruled through 105:7.
witness; Attorney statements
without testimony
106:4-106:20 Irrelevant; attorney statements Sustained.
without testimony
107:19-107:25 Irrelevant; attorney statement Sustained.
without testimony
108:8-108:11 Irrelevant Overruled.
112:21-112:23 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403); Overruled.
Attorney statement without question
113:12-113:13 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403) Overruled.
113:15-114:2 Hearsay; Best evidence Overruled.
115:25-116:7 Lack of Foundation; Lack of Overruled.
personal knowledge; Speculation;
Calls for expert testimony
116:14-116:21 Lack of Foundation; Lack of Overruled.
personal knowledge; Speculation;
Calls for expert testimony
116:22-117:3 Lack of Foundation; Lack of Overruled.
personal knowledge; Speculation;
Calls for expert testimony
117:18-117:25 Hearsay Overruled.
118:5-118:8 Lack of Foundation; Lack of Overruled; there was no objection to
personal knowledge; Speculation; the answer.
Calls for expert testimony; Assumes
facts not in evidence
118:16-118:17 Lack of Foundation; Lack of Overruled.
personal knowledge; Speculation;
Calls for expert testimony; Assumes
facts not in evidence
119:14-119:16 Irrelevant Overruled.
122:4-122:6 Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403) Overruled.
122:14-122:19 Hearsay; unresponsive answer; Overruled.
Irrelevant & confusing (401, 403)
130:10-130:13 Lack of Foundation; Lack of Overruled.
personal knowledge; Speculation
130:4-130:19 Irrelevant Overruled.
126:10-126:14 Irrelevant Overruled.
128:12-128:20 Irrelevant Overruled.
129:14-130:4 Irrelevant Overruled.
130:7-130:15 Irrelevant Overruled.
130:23-132:13 Irrelevant Sustained as to 130:11-12.
132:14-132:23 Lack of personal knowledge; Lack Sustained.
Foundation; Speculation
132:24-133:2 Lack of personal knowledge; Lack Sustained.
Foundation; Speculation
136:12-136:16 Lack of personal knowledge; Lack Overruled.
Foundation; Speculation
137:20-137:25 Lack of personal knowledge; Lack Sustained.
Foundation; Speculation
157:2-157:8 Attorney statement without Overruled.
question/answer
157:24-159:9 Irrelevant Overruled.
159:10-159:12 Attorney statement without Sustained.
testimony
159:15-159:19 Irrelevant; Argumentative & Sustained.
harassing witness
159:21-160:18 Irrelevant Sustained.
160:22-162:3 Irrelevant Sustained.
165:20-165:25 Irrelevant Sustained.
167:2-168:7 Irrelevant Overruled as to the existence of the
conversation; sustained as to the
contract.
168:10-169:1 Irrelevant Same.
169:8-169:13 Irrelevant Same.
201:11-201:24 Irrelevant Overruled.
202:3-202:8 Irrelevant Overruled.
202:14-202:23 Irrelevant Overruled.
203:1-204:3 Irrelevant Overruled.
204:1-204:12 Lack of personal knowledge; Lack Overruled.
Foundation; Speculation
204:13-206:17 Irrelevant Overruled.
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 48:6-14 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Both parties object to this, so
Incomplete designation sustained.
P. 68:22-71:11 Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Overruled. Similar testimony is
Foundation, Lack of Authentication, already in evidence and the objected-to
Inappropriate Expert Opinion testimony is responsive to
Testimony, Incomplete Designation Defendants' other designations.
P. 71:16-72:9 Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Sustained.
Foundation Lack of Authentication,
Inappropriate Expert Opinion
Testimony, Incomplete Designation
P. 175:25-177:10 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled.
of Authentication, Inappropriate
Expert Opinion Testimony,
Relevance
P. 177:20-22 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Cumulative
P. 178:17-181:12 Relevance, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 190:19-192:17 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled. The Court might sustain
Inappropriate Expert Opinion this, but it seems that it came in
Testimony without objection in other places.
P. 193:1-25 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Sustained as to the expert opinion.
Inappropriate Expert Opinion
Testimony, Inappropriate
Hypothetical
21. Rose White — Rader Transcript Vol 1(7/1/4/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
20:1-22:219 Irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401. Overruled.
Testimony constitutes expert
opinion/conclusions; inadmissible
lay opinion testimony under Fed. R.
Evid. 701.
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 11:15-17 Relevance Sustained.
P. 11:22-24 Relevance Sustained.
P. 19:11-14 Relevance Overruled.
P. 22:22-23:2 Relevance Overruled.
P. 32:25-33:16 Relevance Overruled.
P. 35:24-36:3 Relevance Overruled.
P. 37:20-38:2 Relevance Sustained.
P. 39:6-24 Relevance Overruled.
P. 44:15-25 Relevance, Hearsay, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 46:13-18 Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 46:19-22 Relevance, Hearsay, Lack of Sustained.
and 47:7-9 Foundation
P. 47:7-23 Relevance, Hearsay, Lack of Sustained except as to lines 16-23.
Foundation, Attorney Testimony
P. 48:14-19 Relevance, Hearsay, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 49:16-50:10 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 50:16-52:3 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 55:22-25 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 56:10-57:8 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled.
of Authentication, Attorney
Testimony
P. 58:5-15 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 58:19-59:15 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 60:11-14 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Misleading, Incomplete Designation
P. 63:14-64:6 Hearsay, Lack of Authentication Overruled.
P. 65:1-10 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled.
of Authentication
P. 65:20-66:11 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled.
of Authentication
P. 69:20-70:24 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled.
of Authentication, Speculation,
Misleading, Incomplete Designation
P. 70:25-72:3 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
and 72:7-11 Relevance, Lack of Authentication,
Attorney Testimony
P. 74:2-75:13 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled to the extent she is merely
Relevance, Lack of Authentication, describing her work related to the
Attorney Testimony listed companies.
P. 79:13-24 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Attorney Testimony, Relevance
P. 80:19-23 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance, Lack of Authentication,
Attorney Testimony
P. 81:4-83:25 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance, Lack of Authentication,
Attorney Testimony
P. 84:3-85:9 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Attorney Testimony, Relevance
P. 85:24-86:12 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled through 86:3, sustained as
Attorney Testimony, Inappropriate to the rest of the objected-to
Expert Testimony testimony as inappropriate expert
testimony.
P. 86:18-25 Hearsay, Attorney Testimony, Overruled.
Relevance, Misleading, Lack of
Foundation
P. 87:13-88:8 Lack of Foundation, Hearsay, Overruled.
Attorney Testimony, Relevance
P. 88:21-89:6 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Incomplete designation, Relevance
P. 89:17-90:9 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 90:17-92:1 Hearsay, Relevance, Incomplete Overruled.
Designation
P. 93:13-18 Hearsay, Relevance Overruled.
P. 101:7-11 Relevance, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Misleading
P. 102:19-25 Misleading, Relevance, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 103:10-19 Relevance, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 105:7-17 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 106:7-20 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 107:2-24 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 110:7-11 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 110:12-111:9 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Attorney Testimony, Relevance
P. 111:18-22 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 112:13-16 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 114:2-18 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 115:10-116:8 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 125:13-126:1 Hearsay, Relevance Sustained as to 127:1-2, otherwise
and overruled.
127:1-6
P. 127:19-128:15 Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 128:16-130:13 Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Lack of Authentication
P. 130:19-23, Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
130:25-131:23, Relevance, Lack of Authentication
132:1-18, and
132:21-25
P. 134:3-5, Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Overruled.
134:10-21, Foundation
P. 134:24-135:23, Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Overruled.
136:5-12, Foundation, Speculation
and
136:16-18
P. 136:19-22, Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Sustained.
136:25-137:4, Foundation
and 137:8-12
22. Rose White — Rader Transcript Vol. 2 (12/12/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
183/2-184/6 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
184/20-185/15 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Sustained.
193/1-193/13 Lacks factual foundation; assumes Overruled.
facts not in evidence (Fed.R.Evid.
401, 403). Speculation and
inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 401-403,
602.
215/4-215/13 Testimony out of context and Overruled.
leading.
217/6-217/22 Testimony out of context and Overruled.
leading.
225/22-226/13 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Sustained, inappropriate expert
Constitutes expert testimony.
opinion/conclusions; inadmissible
lay opinion testimony under
Fed.R.Evid. 701.
226/18-226/22 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Sustained, inappropriate expert
Constitutes expert testimony.
opinion/conclusions; inadmissible
lay opinion testimony under
Fed.R.Evid. 701.
232/8-232/16 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
236/25-237/15 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
241/25-242/8 Lacks factual foundation; assumes Overruled.
facts not in evidence (Fed.R.Evid.
401, 403). Assumes facts not in
evidence and likely to cause
confusion under Fed.R.Evid. 401,
403.
245/8-245/24 Lacks factual foundation; assumes Overruled.
facts not in evidence (Fed.R.Evid.
401, 403). Assumes facts not in
evidence and likely to cause
confusion under Fed.R.Evid. 401,
403.
247/14-247/24 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Sustained, inappropriate expert
Constitutes expert testimony.
opinion/conclusions; inadmissible
lay opinion testimony under
Fed.R.Evid. 701.
249/3-250/8 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
251/11-252/7 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Assumes facts not in evidence and
likely to cause confusion under
Fed.R.Evid. 401, 403.
258/3-258/7 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled. Objections to the form of
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602 (as to the question are waived if not raised
what BEAR knew). in the deposition.
271/25-272/2 Lacks factual foundation; assumes Overruled.
facts not in evidence (Fed.R.Evid.
401, 403). Speculation and
inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 401-403,
602.
276/3-277/12 Constitutes expert Sustained as to expert opinion;
opinion/conclusions; inadmissible overruled as to 276:16-19; 277:9-12.
lay opinion testimony under
Fed.R.Evid. 701.
277/17-277/21 Constitutes expert Sustained as expert opinion.
opinion/conclusions; inadmissible
lay opinion testimony under
Fed.R.Evid. 701.
279/3-279/19 Constitutes expert Sustained as expert opinion.
opinion/conclusions; inadmissible
lay opinion testimony under
Fed.R.Evid. 701.
282/10-282/24 Constitutes expert Sustained as expert opinion.
opinion/conclusions; inadmissible
lay opinion testimony under
Fed.R.Evid. 701.
286/5-286/16 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
288/8-288/18 Speculation and inadmissible under Sustained.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
299/16-299/23 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
302/8-303/11 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
305/5-306/23 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
310/22-312/6 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
314/3-314/22 Testimony out of context and Overruled. Objections to the form of
leading. the question are waived if not raised
in the deposition.
315/23-316/4 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
317/5-320/20 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled as to the witness's
Out of context; leading; Johanson is response to the specific question she
testifying for the witness. was asked; most of the leading was
not objected to, and counsel's
descriptions are not considered
evidence.
323/20-325/25 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
327/17-327/24 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Sustained.
341/9-341/15 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
349/9-352/15 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
356/5-357/19 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
358/8-361/13 Lacks factual foundation; assumes Overruled.
facts not in evidence (Fed.R.Evid.
401, 403). Assumes facts not in
evidence and likely to cause
confusion under Fed.R.Evid. 401,
403.
366/24-367/20 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
369/6-370/23 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
371/10-374/23 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602. Lack of
personal knowledge.
375/4-377/10 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
377/25-381/8 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
23. Rose White — Rader Transcript Vol. 3 (12/19/11)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
393/20-394/25 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
396/19-397/23 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
398/4-398/22 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
399/9-399/18 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
400/14-400/21 Lacks factual foundation; assumes Overruled.
facts not in evidence (Fed.R.Evid.
401, 403).
401/6-401/14 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
402/19-403/4, Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
9-14
405/21 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
407/12-407/14 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
408/3-408/17 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
409/2-409/5 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
410/7, 12- Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
407/1710 Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
411/18-412/1 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
413/14, 22-414/14 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
414/21-415/7-9 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
417/9-417/14 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
420/23-426/17 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
427/13-428/7 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
428/13-429/11 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
429/16-431/1 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
431/7-431/17 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
435/7-436/16 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
437/11-442/9 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
445/3-445/15 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
448/17-449/23 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
450/25-452/18 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
453/8-460/19 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
461/7-462/5 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
462/13-463/13 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
465/2-465/9 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
466/6-466/12 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
467/9-467/15 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
468/15-468/22 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
471/9-473/25 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
474/4-475/25 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
476/10-479/22 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
484/17-485/12 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
489/19-489/25 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
491/19-491/25 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
492/1-494/23 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
494/24-496/23 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
518/22-520/3 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
522/5-524/13 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
525/15-526/4 Speculation and inadmissible under Overruled.
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
527/8-527/14 Irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401. Overruled.
Speculation and inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 401-403, 602.
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 498:7-503:21 Relevance, Hearsay, Lack of Overruled.
and Foundation, Cumulative
506:10-509:6
P. 510:5-511:17 Relevance, Hearsay, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Cumulative
P. 511:18-20 Relevance, Hearsay Overruled, no objection to the
response.
P. 524:3-5 Misleading, Hearsay, Attorney Overruled.
Testimony
P. 524:8-13 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
P. 526:7-10 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled.
24. Rose White — Perez Transcript Vol. I (2/23/12)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
51:25-52:25 Form: improper method of Sustained. While the witness may
refreshing witness's recollection have been refreshed, she offered no
testimony regarding the issue, and
counsel's question is not evidence.
69:4-9 Hearsay Overruled.
82:18-22 Calls for expert opinion; lack of Sustained.
foundation
92:6-15 Calls for expert opinion; lack of Sustained.
foundation
108:4-8.10 Calls for expert opinion; lack of Sustained.
foundation
108:11-14, 16 Calls for expert opinion; lack of Sustained.
foundation
111:1-10 Calls for expert opinion; lack of Overruled; no objection to response.
foundation
113:2-8 Calls for expert opinion; lack of Sustained.
foundation
134:25-135:3 Lack of foundation: witness did not Overruled.
remember predicate facts (emails
referenced); unsupported fact
(implies White produced
"valuations")
135:7-13 Lack of foundation: witness did not Overruled.
remember predicate facts (emails
referenced); unsupported fact
(implies White produced
"valuations")
135:17-23 Lack of foundation: unsupported Overruled.
fact (implies White produced
"valuations")
151:15-18 Form: term "substantially more Overruled. Testimony was
conservative" vague and ambiguous designated by both parties, and there
was no objection to the response.
168:13-169:2 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
170:2-25 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
171:13-16, 20 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
176:3-19 Hearsay; Form: term "carelessness" Overruled.
vague and ambiguous
176:21-23 Hearsay; Form: phrase "attention to Overruled.
detail" vague and ambiguous
182:9-14 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
189:18-190:1 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
190:21-24 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
191:2-5 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
192:21-193:25 Hearsay The Court may need clarification on
these objections, but it appears they
should be overruled. First, evidence
related to Donnelly's work is already
in evidence through other witnesses,
often offered by the Plaintiffs.
Second, the statements are not, in
many instances, offered for their truth
but to show what Donnelly
concluded or what he did or did not
do. Finally, Plaintiffs themselves
rely heavily on these exhibits in other
depositions. If they now maintain
that the exhibits are not business
records under 803(6), or otherwise
maintain that they are hearsay, then
excluding this testimony would
necessitate exclusion of all reference
to the valuation reports and
supporting documentation.
194:20-195:4 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
195:14-15 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
196:16-197:10 Hearsay Overruled. Statement not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted.
198:4-25 Hearsay Overruled.
199:25-200:8 Hearsay Overruled.
200:23-201:9 Hearsay Overruled.
200:13-22 Hearsay Overruled.
202:12-25 Hearsay Overruled.
203:4-15 Hearsay Overruled.
204:4-6 Hearsay Overruled.
204:13-20 Hearsay Overruled.
205:8-18 Hearsay Overruled.
206:10-13 Hearsay Overruled.
207:9-18 Hearsay Overruled.
207:24-208:2 Hearsay Overruled.
208:13-209:2 Hearsay Overruled.
209:10-12 Hearsay Overruled.
201:1-25 Hearsay Overruled.
212:16-24 Hearsay Overruled.
213:3-15 Hearsay Overruled.
213:19-21 Hearsay Overruled.
214:18-215:1 Hearsay Overruled.
215:10-12 Hearsay Overruled.
215:18-216:5 Hearsay Overruled.
217:1-21 Hearsay Overruled.
218:10-24 Hearsay Overruled.
219:1-3, 5 Form: phrase "attention to detail" Overruled.
vague and ambiguous
219:14-220:19 Form: term "carelessness" vague Overruled.
and ambiguous
221:8-14 Hearsay Overruled.
222:5-223:18 Hearsay Overruled.
224:4-16 Hearsay Overruled.
225:2-5 Hearsay Overruled.
226:4-6 Hearsay Overruled.
228:10-13 Hearsay Overruled.
229:13-15 Hearsay Overruled.
230:3-5 Hearsay Overruled.
231:7-15 Hearsay Overruled.
232:2-6 Hearsay Overruled.
233:17-21 Hearsay Overruled.
237:18-21 Hearsay Overruled.
238:6-15 Hearsay Overruled.
239:10-15 Hearsay Overruled.
240:11-17 Hearsay Overruled.
243:23-244:2 Hearsay Overruled.
246:17-20 Hearsay Overruled.
248:24-249:4 Hearsay Overruled.
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 78:19-79:9 Hearsay, Relevance Overruled.
P. 101:19-102:3 Relevance Sustained.
P. 151:22-155:8 Lack of Foundation, Hearsay Overruled.
P. 160:13-163:4 Lack of Foundation, Hearsay, Overruled.
Speculative
P. 253:24-256:18 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 256:23-257:14 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Speculative
P. 258:24-259:11 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Sustained. No testimony.
Questions Withdrawn
P. 260:18-24 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled. Germane cross-examination.
Improper Hypothetical
P. 263:6-264:11 Hearsay, Relevance Overruled. Germane cross-examination.
P. 272:13-273:9 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled. Germane cross-examination.
P. 275:13-276:2 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance
P. 276:3-277:6 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Improper Hypothetical, Relevance,
Lack of Authentication
P. 278:16-279:12 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Overruled.
Relevance, Lack of Authentication
P. 279:13-280:17 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Sustained. Expert opinion.
of Authentication, Improper Expert
Testimony
P. 282:12-283:3 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled as to 282:12-22; sustained
of Authentication, Improper Expert as to the rest as expert testimony.
Testimony
P. 286:9-288:25 Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
P. 307:23-308:12 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Sustained. Her testimony is based on
Relevance issues that arose after the relevant
time, and there is no indication from
this testimony that similar issues
existed during the relevant time.
Fed. R. Evid. 402.
25. Rose White - Perez Tramscropt Vol. II (2/24/12)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
347:21-22 Hearsay Overruled.
Plaintiffs'
Designation Defendants' Objection Ruling
P. 323:23-327:22 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Lack Overruled.
of Authentication, Speculative
P. 328:1-330:25 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation, Sustained as to expert opinions;
Improper Expert Opinion overruled as to what was recorded
because Defendants inquired into this
in the 2/23/12 deposition.
P. 331:1-332:4 Hearsay, Lack of Foundation Overruled; Defendants introduced
this exhibit and examined the witness
about it.
P. 332:16-333:13 Relevance, Hearsay, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Speculative
P. 334:4-335:5 Relevance, Hearsay, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation, Speculative
P. 335:15-23, Hearsay, Relevance Overruled.
341:12-342:16
P. 358:5-15 Hearsay, Relevance Overruled.
P. 361:3-9 Hearsay, Relevance, Lack of Overruled.
Foundation
26. Rose White — Perez Transcript Vol. III (4/12/12)
Defendants'
Designation Plaintiffs' Objection Ruling
380:2-3 Hearsay Overruled. Most of the following
objections relate to an affidavit
White signed, the documents it
addressed, and her efforts to review
her file. Questions regarding her
past affidavit statements are not
hearsay pursuant to Rule 801(d)(1).
Questions regarding the exhibits
addressed in the affidavit are not
hearsay unless Plaintiffs now
maintain that the valuations and
supporting documents are hearsay
not otherwise redeemed by Rule
803(6) or other exceptions. Finally,
asking the witness about her actions
does not involve an out-of-court
statement offered for its truth. For
these reasons, the objections are
overruled.
381:13-20 Hearsay Overruled. The statement is not
considered for its truth, but explains
the testimony that follows without
objection.
384:9-12 Lack of foundation Overruled.
386:5-13 Hearsay Overruled.
386:17-24 Hearsay Overruled.
387:2-7 Hearsay Overruled.
387:16-22 Hearsay Overruled.
389:9-16 Hearsay Overruled.
390:7-17; Hearsay Overruled.
390:21
390:14-17; Form: Compound Overruled.
390:19-21
391:18-392:4 Hearsay Overruled.
392:9-12 Hearsay Overruled.
392:16-20 Hearsay Overruled.
394:11-25 Hearsay Overruled.
395:14-24 Hearsay Overruled.
397:5-398:1 Hearsay Overruled.
398:3-24 Hearsay Overruled.
399:1-5 Hearsay Overruled.
400:2 Hearsay Overruled.
400:20-23 Hearsay Overruled.
400:25-401:4 Hearsay Overruled.
400:9-15 Hearsay; Lack of foundation: Overruled.
Attorney asserting facts
402:4-8 Hearsay Overruled.
404:1-4 Hearsay Overruled.
404:12-15 Lack of foundation: Misstates Overruled.
witness testimony
404:22-24 Lack of foundation: Misstates Overruled.
witness testimony
405:11-19 Hearsay Overruled.
407:9-12, 15 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
408:3-409:2 Hearsay Overruled.
409:21-24; Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
410:2-3 "conflict"; Compound
410:14-20 Hearsay Overruled.
411:3-10 Hearsay Overruled.
411:16-24 Hearsay Overruled.
413:2-4, 11-12 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
413:24-414:3 Hearsay Overruled.
414:6-23 Hearsay Overruled.
414:25-415:3 Hearsay Overruled.
416:16-18, 20 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
417:12-418:3 Hearsay Overruled.
419:1-4, 6 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
419:23-420:6 Hearsay Overruled.
420:8-18 Hearsay Overruled.
422:4-423:11 Hearsay Overruled.
424:13-15, 18 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
425:5-10 Hearsay Overruled.
425:18-426:4 Hearsay Overruled.
425:11-21 Hearsay Overruled.
428:5-8, 10 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
428:21-25 Hearsay Overruled.
428:6-13 Hearsay Overruled.
429:17-20 Hearsay Overruled.
430:3-6, 8 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
430:17-431:12 Hearsay Overruled.
431:11-12, 14-22 Form: Ambiguous Overruled.
431:14-432:13 Hearsay Overruled.
432:19-23 Hearsay Overruled.
433:2-12 Hearsay Overruled.
434:1-6 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
434:18-435:7 Hearsay Overruled.
435:13-22 Hearsay Overruled.
435:24-436:25 Hearsay Overruled.
437:1-3 Form: Ambiguous Overruled.
437:24-438:2 Hearsay Overruled.
438:19-439:16 Hearsay Overruled.
439:20-23 Hearsay Overruled.
440:1-22 Hearsay Overruled.
440:25-441:3 Hearsay Overruled.
441:15-19 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
441:24 Hearsay Overruled.
442:16-443:6 Hearsay Overruled.
443:12-22 Hearsay Overruled.
444:18-21 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
445:7-12 Hearsay Overruled.
445:17-446:5 Hearsay Overruled.
446:8-16 Hearsay Overruled.
446:20-24 Hearsay Overruled.
449:20-450:1 Hearsay Overruled.
450:7-17 Hearsay Overruled.
450:25 Hearsay Overruled.
451:3-4 Hearsay Overruled.
452:9-12, 13 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
452:14-16 Hearsay Overruled.
453:1-454:1 Hearsay Overruled.
454:5-9 Hearsay Overruled.
454:22-25 Hearsay Overruled.
455:12-21 Hearsay Overruled.
456:1-9 Hearsay Overruled.
456:19-457:1 Hearsay Overruled.
458:1-2, 4-7 Hearsay; Form: Compound Overruled.
458:10-12, 14-20 Hearsay Overruled.
458:21-460:1 Hearsay Overruled.
460:2-22 Hearsay Overruled.
461:19-21, 24 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
462:11-463:9 Hearsay Overruled.
463:12-464:15 Hearsay Overruled.
465:3-6 Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
"conflict"; Compound
465:18-22 Hearsay Overruled.
466:1-20 Hearsay Overruled.
466:24-467:15 Hearsay Overruled.
466:21-23 Hearsay Overruled.
468:23-469:1; Hearsay; Form: Vague as to the word Overruled.
470:4-5 "conflict"; Compound (This form
objection provided as a standing
form objection at 469:20-470:2)
471:3-472:8 Hearsay Overruled.
471:12-15 Standing form objection provided at Overruled.
469:20-470:2: Vague as to the word
"conflict"; Compound
471:12-473:3 Hearsay Overruled.
473:8-12 Hearsay Overruled.
473:23-474:1 Hearsay; Standing form objection Overruled.
provided at 469:20-470:2: Vague as
to the word "conflict"; Compound
474:12-475:3 Hearsay Overruled.
475:12-476:1 Hearsay Overruled.
477:8 Hearsay Overruled.
477:18-21 Hearsay; Standing form objection Overruled.
provided at 469:20-470:2: Vague as
to the word "conflict"; Compound
478:8-479:14 Hearsay Overruled.
480:3-6 Hearsay; Standing form objection Overruled.
provided at 469:20-470:2: Vague as
to the word "conflict"; Compound
480:18-481:1 Hearsay Overruled.
481:5-482:2 Hearsay Overruled.
482:20-23 Hearsay; Standing form objection Overruled.
provided at 469:20-470:2: Vague as
to the word "conflict"; Compound
483:9-17 Hearsay Overruled.
483:17-484:15 Hearsay Overruled.
485:12-7 Hearsay Overruled.
487:8-13 Hearsay Overruled.
487:20-488:20 Hearsay Overruled.
489:10-13 Hearsay; Standing form objection Overruled.
provided at 469:20-470:2: Vague as
to the word "conflict"; Compound
489:23-490:4 Hearsay Overruled.
490:8-22 Hearsay Overruled.
491:24-492:3; Hearsay Overruled.
492:5-13
493:3-6 Hearsay; Standing form objection Overruled.
provided at 469:20-470:2: Vague as
to the word "conflict"; Compound
493:16-494:20 Hearsay Overruled.
495:13-16 Hearsay; Standing form objection Overruled.
provided at 469:20-470:2: Vague as
to the word "conflict"; Compound
496:2-4 Hearsay Overruled.
496:7-497:8 Hearsay Overruled.
498:1-4 Hearsay; Standing form objection Overruled.
provided at 469:20-470:2: Vague as
to the word "conflict"; Compound
498:5-6 Hearsay: Form: Vague and Overruled.
ambiguous as to the phrase
"corroborate the information
referenced in your affidavit"
506:17-507:13 Hearsay Overruled.
507:18-19 Hearsay; Lack of foundation: Overruled.
Assumes facts not in evidence
508:4-6, 8-9, Hearsay;Lack of foundation: Overruled.
20-25 Misstates witness testimony
509:5-13 Hearsay Overruled.
509:25-510:4 Hearsay; Lack of foundation: Overruled.
Assumes facts not in evidence
510:9-11, 14 Hearsay; Lack of foundation: Overruled.
Assumes facts not in evidence
510:15-21 Hearsay Overruled.
511:1-512:1 Hearsay Overruled.
513:17 Hearsay Overruled.
514:9-13 Hearsay Overruled.
514:16-515:7 Hearsay Overruled.
515:15-517:14 Lack of witness testimony Sustained.
517:23-518:24 Hearsay Overruled.
519:19-520:6, Hearsay Overruled.
11-12
520:13-24 Hearsay Overruled.
521:8-14 Hearsay Overruled.
523:22-524:2 Lack of foundation: Misstates Overruled.
witness testimony
525:21-23; Hearsay Overruled.
526:6-10
526:15-17, 21-22 Lack of foundation: Misstates Overruled.
witness testimony
526:23-25 Form: Argumentative Overruled.
528:3-4 Hearsay; Overruled.
Hearsay within hearsay
528:7-13, 17-19 Hearsay Overruled.
528:20-25; Form: Argumentative; Calls for Overruled.
529:5-7 speculation
529:10-17 Form: Argumentative; Badgering the Sustained.
witness
529:18-530:20 Lack of witness testimony Sustained.
530:10-12; Form: Argumentative; Lack of Overruled.
530:21-23 foundation: Misstates witness
testimony
530:24-531:1; Form: Argumentative; Badgering the Overruled.
531:9-14 witness; Lack of foundation:
Assumes facts not in evidence
531:16-17, 21-23 Form: Argumentative; Badgering the Overruled.
witness; Lack of foundation:
Misstates witness testimony
531:24-532:2 Form: Badgering and harassing the Overruled.
witness; Lack of foundation:
Assumes facts not in evidence
532:3-531:21 Lack of witness testimony Sustained.
533:23-535:1 Hearsay within hearsay Overruled.
535:24-537:2 Hearsay within hearsay Overruled. Questions from counsel
are not evidence.
537:8-14 Hearsay; Relevance Overruled. Reflects witness's
demeanor and credibility.
542:2-6, 11-13 Lack of Foundation: Assumes facts Sustained.
not in evidence; Form: Calls for
Speculation
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
