Stinson v. Gauger, 09-cv-1033-pp. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20190624d87
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER RULING ON DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S ADVERSE EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON (DKT. NO. 300) AND DEFENDANT GAUGER'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S ADVERSE EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON (DKT. NO. 331) PAMELA PEPPER , District Judge . Designation Objection Ruling Plaintiff's Dr. Johnson's Objections Designation Volume 1 5:17-25 Object to striking this
Summary: ORDER RULING ON DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S ADVERSE EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON (DKT. NO. 300) AND DEFENDANT GAUGER'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S ADVERSE EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON (DKT. NO. 331) PAMELA PEPPER , District Judge . Designation Objection Ruling Plaintiff's Dr. Johnson's Objections Designation Volume 1 5:17-25 Object to striking this ..
More
ORDER RULING ON DEFENDANT JOHNSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S ADVERSE EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON (DKT. NO. 300) AND DEFENDANT GAUGER'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S ADVERSE EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON (DKT. NO. 331)
PAMELA PEPPER, District Judge.
Designation Objection Ruling
Plaintiff's Dr. Johnson's Objections
Designation
Volume 1
5:17-25 Object to striking this Sustained—do not strike.
portion. This is simply
introduction is stricken, but
the rest isn't
7:22-25 to 8:1-4 Object to removal; the jury Sustained—do not strike.
is entitled to be informed at
the outset of testimony why
Dr. Johnson keeps looking
down at the real-time screen
while answering questions
23:5-12 Question-and-answer Sustained—strike 23:05 to
should be stricken; 23:18.
argumentative as to the
word "damning"; objection is
to form in that it is unclear
what is meant by "on trial
for his life."
26:7-14 / 27:16-22 Questions-and-answers Sustained as to 26:07—
should be stricken; form strike.
and mischaracterization of
testimony; conflates Overruled as to 26:8-14,
"studies" on the uniqueness 27:16-22.
of dentition (which did exist
in 1984-see plaintiff's
exhibit 3) with statistical
database evidence (which
did not)
40:13-15/ 24-25 Can remove my objections Stipulated—strike 40:13-15;
40:24-25.
58:25-59:1-4 Question-and-answer Overruled.
should be stricken;
objection was "vague as to
time"; the time of the receipt
of the alleged photos was
not subsequently clarified
for the witness; objection
stands
63:3-6 Lines should be removed; Sustained—strike 63:3-6.
witness obviously
referencing the wrong page
of the transcript in these
lines
Volume 2
Pages 92-94 Introduction language Sustained—strike 92:10-25.
should be either included or
excluded; plaintiff's current
designation leaves one part
of introduction (page 92) in,
but strikes portions of the
introduction on pages 93
through 94
109:1-2 Strike objection, lines 1 to 2 Sustained—strike 109:01-02.
156:1-2 Strike objection, lines 1 to 2 Sustained—strike156:01-02.
173:3 to 181:7 Section should be stricken; Sustained as to 177:3-8—
objection placed at 173:23-174:5; strike 177:3-8.
irrelevant. This
section is an attempt to Sustained as to 181:1-2—
have Dr. Johnson reproduce strike 181:1-2.
his 1984 analysis 35 years
later. All negligence claims Overruled as to
have been dropped. The remainder—relevant to how
issue is deliberate Johnson conducted his
fabrication and conspiracy. analysis in 1984/85.
Whether he can duplicate
his original analysis 35
years later or whether this
method of comparison is
"proper" or consistent with
standard of practice is
irrelevant.
193:1 to 220:19 Section should be stricken; Overruled, with the
object as to relevance; this exception of 204:11-12—
section is an attempt to strike objection.
have Dr. Johnson re-create
work that was done 35 years
ago and that took over 100
hours. In addition, no
negligence claims remain;
whether he can accurately
duplicate his 1985 work is
irrelevant.
224:3-5 Strike lines 3 through 5; Sustained in part—strike
foundation: it was not 224:03-04 and the words
establishing that Dr. "Ms. Cychosz" in 224:05.
Johnson had any insight
into why DA [Blinka] was
thinking about charging Mr.
Stinson, beyond the fact
that he wanted a second
opinion.
247:5-9 Strike lines 5 through 9; Sustained—strike 247:5-7
foundation: Johnson had no (247:8-9 already stricken)
way to know that Jenkins
was found near the scene.
254:20-25 Strike lines 20 through 25; Sustained—strike 254:20-25.
Form and foundation; the
question was never
answered, and was
abandoned/not followed up
264:25 to 266:16 Section should be stricken; Sustained as to 264:25
interactions with Atty Gahn through 266:3 and the
in 2008 are irrelevant to words "just asked you:" at
claim of fabrication in 1984; 266:4.
also potentially violates
court order to the extent Dr. Overruled as to 266:4 "Do
Johnson was asked whether you remember . . ." through
he believes he "got it right" 266:16 (excluding already
stricken material)—relevant
re: trial rulings on June 18,
does not violate court's
ruling at Dkt. No. 302 at 2
(granting Johnson's MIL
225 #2)
266:16 to 279:9 Section should be stricken; Sustained—irrelevant.
this series of questions Strike 266:16 to 279:9
pertains to 2008 and 2009;
irrelevant to the claim of
fabrication and withholding
of evidence dating to 1984
and 1985
283: 16, 19, 21, Remove "leading" objections Sustained—strike 283:16,
25 283:19, 293:21 and 283:25.
Volume 3
Dr. Johnson objects to the Johnson did not identify
entirety of Stinson's "proffer" pages/lines. Court cannot
on Wednesday, June 5. locate a proffer by Stinson.
Court assumes Johnson
means 463:8 starting at ",
but" and ending at 468:8.
Court orders that 463:8
starting at ", but" and
ending at 468:8 be
stricken.
Plaintiff's Gauger's Objections
Designation
Volume 1
8:17 Overruled as moot—already
stricken.
Volume 2
110:20 Overruled as moot—already
stricken.
134:17 Sustained—strike134:17 to
134:19.
136:10 Overruled as moot—already
striken.
142:3 Overruled as moot—143:3
through 142:8 already
stricken.
176:8 Overruled as moot—176:8
to 176:13 already stricken.
228:22 Overruled as moot—228:22
to 228:23 already stricken.
232:9, 21 Overruled as moot—232:7-8
and 232:21-22 already
stricken.
241:17 Overruled as moot—
241:17-18 already stricken.
264:8 Overruled as moot—264:8-9
already stricken.
265:2, 22 Overruled as moot—265:2
and 265:22-23 already
stricken.
266:10 Overruled as moot—
266:10-14 already stricken.
269:13 Overruled as moot—
entirety of page 269 already
stricken.
271:15 Overruled as moot—
271:15-16 already stricken.
272: 3, 14 Overruled as moot—272:3-4
and 272:22-23 already
stricken.
274: 6, 17, 25 Overruled as moot—273:2-3
and 273:14-15 already
stricken.
275: 16, 23 Overruled as moot—275:5-6,
275:9-11, 275:16-17 and
275:23-24 already stricken.
276: 11, 17 Overruled as moot—
276:11-12 and 273:17-18
already stricken.
277: 10, 21 Overruled as moot—
277:10-11 and 277:21-22
already stricken.
278: 8, 17, 23 Overruled as moot—278:8-9,
278:17 and 278:23
already stricken.
279: 7 Overruled as moot—279:7-8
already stricken.
Volume 3
Object to entire proffer. Gauger did not identify
pages/lines. Court cannot
locate a proffer by Stinson.
Court assumes Gauger
means 463:8 starting at ",
but" and ending at 468:8.
Court orders that 463:8
starting at ", but" and
ending at 468:8 be
stricken.
Source: Leagle
