WALKER v. GOLDEN, CIV-15-28-SPS. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20160222a39
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS STEVEN P. SHREDER , Magistrate Judge . A. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and Supporting Brief [Docket No. 63] is GRANTED by agreement of the parties. B. Regarding Defendant's Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59], the Court orders as follows: 1. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to items 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11. 2. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to item 3, with the proviso that it may later be deemed releva
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS STEVEN P. SHREDER , Magistrate Judge . A. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and Supporting Brief [Docket No. 63] is GRANTED by agreement of the parties. B. Regarding Defendant's Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59], the Court orders as follows: 1. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to items 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11. 2. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to item 3, with the proviso that it may later be deemed relevan..
More
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
STEVEN P. SHREDER, Magistrate Judge.
A. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and Supporting Brief [Docket No. 63] is GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
B. Regarding Defendant's Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59], the Court orders as follows:
1. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to items 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11.
2. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to item 3, with the proviso that it may later be deemed relevant depending on testimony provided at trial, particularly from Lisa Miller.
3. The Defendant's motion is DENIED and PERMITTED as to item 5 to the same extent denied and permitted in CIV-15-29-SPS, Liverman v. Golden.
4. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to item 7 subject to the provisions of Fed. R. Evid. 608.
5. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to item 12 ("Witness and Exhibits not listed on Plaintiff's witness or exhibit list"), to be re-urged at the time of trial if appropriate.
6. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to items 13-14.
C. Regarding the Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations for Lisa Miller [Docket No. 82], the Court orders as follows:
1. The Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations are GRANTED as to items 1-5, and 8-9, 13, and 17-18.
2. The Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations are GRANTED as to items 10-12, with the same proviso as stated with regard to item 3 of Defendant's Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59], that they may later be deemed relevant depending on testimony provided at trial, particularly from Lisa Miller.
3. The Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations are DENIED as to items 6-7, 14-16, and 20-21.
4. The Defendant's Objections with regard to item 19 are DENIED as to page 68, lines 1-3, and GRANTED as to page 68, lines 4-5.
D. Regarding the Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations for Jaime Newberry Calfy [Docket No. 87], the Court orders as follows:
1. The Defendant's Objections are GRANTED as to items 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 18-25, 30-40, 42, 46-47.
2. The Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations are GRANTED as to items 9, with the same proviso as stated with regard to item 3 of Defendant's Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59], that they may later be deemed relevant depending on testimony provided at trial, particularly from Lisa Miller.
3. The Defendant's Objections are DENIED as to items 11, 14-17, 26-29, 41, 43-44, 48.
4. The Defendant's Objection as to item 45 is DENIED, except that it is GRANTED with regard to any reference to Cody Liverman.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
