MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN, District Judge.

The case is currently pending before the court on plaintiff's Objections to defendant's Witness and Exhibit Lists, (docs. 51, 52), defendant's Objections to plaintiff's Exhibit List, (doc. 49), and defendant's Objection to plaintiff's designation of deposition excerpts, (doc. 75). The court ORDERS as follows:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A). Subsection (B) requires the parties to file the following objections to the subsection (A) disclosures: "any objections to the use under Rule 32(a) of a deposition designated by another party under Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(ii); and any objection, together with the grounds for it, that may be made to the admissibility of materials identified under Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(iii)." Id. (B). "An objection not so made — except for one under Federal Rule of Evidence 402 or 403 — is waived unless excused by the court for good cause." Id. However, "The listing of a potential objection does not constitute the making of that objection or require the court to rule on the objection; rather, it preserves the right of the party to make the objection when and as appropriate during trial. The court may, however, elect to treat the listing as a motion "in limine" and rule upon the objections in advance of trial to the extent appropriate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Advisory Committee Notes, 1993 Amendment, 146 F.R.D. 401, 637 (1993); see, e.g., Med. Ctr. of Cent. Georgia, Inc. v. Denon Digital Employee Benefits Plan, No. 5:03CV32 (DF), 2005 WL 1073624, *1 n.1 (M.D. Ga. May 4, 2005)("Denon's objections to the pre-trial disclosures are not brought in a motion, but instead are simply `disclosed' and filed with the Court as contemplated by Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court, however, elects to treat the listed objections as a motion `in limine' and, to the extent possible, rule upon the objections in advance of trial. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 advisory committee's note.").

To the extent the admissibility of a document, deposition excerpt, and/or witness's testimony is clear, the court will treat the Objections as a Motion in Limine. However, to the extent the admissibility of a document, deposition excerpt, and/or witness's testimony turns on the context in which it may be offered, the court will reserve ruling.

I. MEDICAL TREATMENT RECORDS

(Doc. 67 at 10.)

Therefore, the parties Objections to these exhibits, (plaintiff Exhibits 1, 3-8, and 11-15), and defendant's Exhibits 1, 33,1 and 36), are OVERRULED.

Defendant contends that he will not seek to admit individual documents from Mr. Murphy's treatment records as separate exhibits. (Doc. 73 at 1.) Therefore, plaintiff's Objections to defendant's Exhibits 5-12, 14-17, and 37 are SUSTAINED. Defendant shall not offer any individual document or other part of Mr. Murphy's medical treatment records as an exhibit separate from the compete record of medical treatment as stipulated in the Pretrial Order.

Also, plaintiff objects to Mr. Murphy's medical treatment records to which there is no stipulation, see Exhibits 38, 39, 41, 42, and 45,2 on the grounds that these records were not produced or disclosed;3 that the Exhibits are incomplete portions of Mr. Murphy's treatment records, and/or that the Exhibits the documents are immaterial or irrelevant.

Defendant contends that he does not intend to offer Exhibit 45, documents received from Aetna, an insurance carrier. Plaintiff's Objection to Exhibit 45 is SUSTAINED. As to whether the remaining exhibits, assuming defendant can establish the documents were disclosed, are due to be excluded as an incomplete record of Mr. Murphy's treatment and/or because they are immaterial or irrelevant,4 the court declines to rule on these grounds prior to trial. Plaintiff may raise her objections to these Exhibits if and when defendant offers the Exhibits at trial.

II. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS

BLOOD PRESSURE DEVICE

Defendant lists the following Exhibits:

(Doc. 46 at 2.) Plaintiff objects to Exhibits 22 and 23 on the ground that the documents were not produced and/or disclosed and that the documents may relate to medical records of patients other than Mr. Murphy.

The record does not indicate that the parties have taken issue with the accuracy of the blood-pressure readings taken from Mr. Murphy and/or the operation of the device used to measure his blood pressure. Therefore, the relevancy5 of the instruction manual is not apparent. Also, the photograph of the display monitor of the device showing any reading except that of Mr. Murphy's blood pressure on the day of the incident is not apparently relevant. The parties have listed the actual blood pressure device as an Exhibit without objection.

Nevertheless, assuming defendant ca establish that these documents were disclosed, the final determination of the relevancy of these Exhibits will await trial. The court finds that whether the instruction manual for and the photographs of the blood pressure device are material, relevant, or unduly prejudicial or confusing must await trial. Therefore, the court will reserve ruling on the relevancy of defendant's Exhibits 22 and 23 as a Motion in Limine.

APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE AND TREATMENT RECORDS OF OPERATORY 15

Plaintiff objects to defendant's Exhibits 24, "Patient appointment schedule/registry (Dixieland Dental), Operatory 15, March 5-6 2014," and Exhibit 25, Treatment Records (redacted) regarding Operatory 15 treatment/procedures, March 2014." (Doc. 46 at 2; doc. 51 at 2-3.) From the description of these exhibits, it appears that this information about Mr. Murphy would be included in his treatment records and/or cumulative of other evidence, and also that information regarding other patients would be included. The court finds that whether these Exhibits — the schedule of the procedure room and treatment records from the treatment room, including dates other than March 5, 2014 and information about patients other than Mr. Murphy — are material, relevant, or unduly prejudicial, cumulative, and/or confusing must await trial. Therefore, the court will reserve ruling on plaintiff's Objections to defendant's Exhibits 24 and 25 as a Motion in Limine.

RULE 26 DISCLOSURES

Plaintiff objects to defendant's Exhibit 49, plaintiff's Initial Disclosures, and Exhibit 50, defendant's Initial Disclosure. In response, defendant states that he "does not intend to offer either party's initial disclosures for admission into evidence unless Plaintiff, in eliciting testimony or through argument, takes a position that would arguably warrant the introduction of such evidence." Plaintiff's Objections to Exhibits 49 and 50 are SUSTAINED. Defendant may use the Initial Disclosures as relevant to any argument made to the court and outside the presence of the jury, but the Initial Disclosures are not admissible as evidence before the jury.

EXPERT REPORTS

Plaintiff objects to Exhibits 66-68, which are the Expert Reports and attachments of defendant's experts: Dr. Michael G. Koslin, Dr. Guy Rosenstiel, and Dr. Wendy l. Wright. In response, defendant contends that he does not intend to offer the Expert Reports, but he does intend to offer the attached CV. He has separately listed the CV for each of his experts, (see Exhibits 54-56), to which plaintiff has not objected.

The court SUSTAINS plaintiff's objection to the expert reports and attachments, Exhibits 66-68.

CATEGORICAL EXHIBITS

Defendant lists a number of Exhibits, Exhibits 53, 58-61, and 72-73, which are described in categories. These Exhibits are:

(Doc. 46 at 3-4.) These exhibits are not listed with the specificity required in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(iii).

Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(iii) requires that the pretrial disclosures include "an identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence — separately identifying those items the party expects to offer and those it may offer if the need arises." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(a)(3)(A)(iii). "[C]omposite exhibits and catch all phrases" do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(iii). Blanco v. Capform, Inc., No. 11-23508-CIV, 2013 WL 12061862, *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2013). "[A]n exhaustive description of each document is not necessary; however, such description must be sufficient to put [the opposing party] on notice of exactly which documents [she] can expect to see at trial." Med. Ctr. of Cent. Georgia, Inc. v. Denon Digital Employee Benefits Plan, No. 5:03CV32 (DF), 2005 WL 1073624, *8 (M.D. Ga. May 4, 2005).

The court SUSTAINS plaintiff's objections to defendant's Exhibits 53, 58-61, and 72-73. Defendant shall not offer any document which he listed only in one of the composite or categorical Exhibits 53, 58-61, and 72-73.

CURRICULUM VITAE/RESUME OF ANY OTHER TREATING PHYSICIAN OF JERRY MURPHY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED [TO] THOSE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS LISTED IN THE WITNESS LIST OF DR. PRECISE

Plaintiff objects to Exhibit 57 on the ground that defendant has not specifically identified the documents included in this Exhibit. Plaintiff did not object to Exhibits 54-56, which are the curriculum vitae [CV] for each of defendant's experts. In response, defendant contends that he has included this category "as a matter of caution against unknown testimony or evidence that may arise at trial." (Doc. 73 at 3.) As set forth above, categories of documents are not properly identified exhibits. Therefore, plaintiff's objection to the defendant's Exhibit 57, listed as the CV or resume of all of Mr. Murphy's treating physicians, is SUSTAINED. Nevertheless, any witness may be questioned on his or her background and, if offering opinion testimony, his or her qualifications to give opinion testimony.

DEMONSTRATIVE AIDS

Plaintiff objects to defendant's Exhibits 69 ("Charts, graphs, summaries, or other demonstrative aids depicting or summarizing the information contained in other exhibits and/or testimony") and 70 ("Blow-ups, enlargements, or any computerized images of any of the above for demonstrative purposes").

The court allows parties to use blow-ups and screen images of exhibits that are admitted during trial for demonstrative purposes only. The blow-ups and screed images are not themselves admitted as evidence. As to charts, graphs, and summaries, these may be admitted as evidence based on three conditions: the underlying documents were disclosed and/or produced; the underlying documents are admissible; and the chart, graph, or summary was disclosed in accordance with Rule 26(a) and/or (e). However, the problem with defendant's listed Exhibit 69 is that it does not comply with Rule 26(a)(3)(iii) as defendant has not listed the documents with any specificity.

Plaintiff's objections to Exhibits 69 and 70 are SUSTAINED. However, these documents may be used during trial after the admission of the Exhibits that have been enlarged, imaged, and/or summarized.

DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES

STANDARD OF CARE AND CAUSATION

Plaintiff objects to the following witnesses: (1) Michael Meeks and Pam Gilley, employees of Dixieland Dental; (2) Taylor Peters, the 9-1-1 operator; (3) Keshia Thompson and Greg Hansen, ambulance personnel who transported Mr. Murphy from Flowers Hospital to Southeast Alabama Medical Center; (4) physicians who treated Mr. Murphy prior to March 5, 2014,6 and (5) Nicholas Voss, M.D., who cared for Mr. Murphy following his brain hemorrhage. (Doc., 74 at 1.) Plaintiff objects to these witnesses on two grounds:

In response, defendant states that his "defense will undertake no effort to solicit testimony from any of these witnesses concerning the applicable standard of care or Dr. Precise's adherence to that standard." (Doc. 74 at 2.) Therefore, without opposition, plaintiff's objection to the witnesses listed above offering testimony regarding the standard of care and/or defendant's breach of that standard is SUSTAINED.

Also, the court has held that Dr. Voss's opinion regarding the cause of Mr. Murphy's brain hemorrhage was not properly disclosed; therefore, plaintiff's objection to this testimony is SUSTAINED. However, Dr. Voss may testify as to Mr. Murphy's cause of death, which does not appear to be disputed; plaintiff's objection to Dr. Voss's testimony regarding cause of death is OVERRULED. The other treating physicians and the other listed witnesses may not offer expert opinion testimony regarding causation; therefore, plaintiff's objection to this testimony is SUSTAINED.

HEALTH INSURANCE REPRESENTATIVES

Defendant lists "A representative of any and all/all health insurance carriers providing benefits to Jerry L. Murphy," as witnesses he may call. (Doc. 45 at 3.) In response to plaintiff's objection, defendant states that he "does not intend to call a representative of [Mr.] Murphy's health insurer(s)." (Doc. 74 at 2.) Testimony regarding Mr. Murphy's insurance benefits is inadmissible. Plaintiff's objection to these witnesses is SUSTAINED. REPRESENTATIVE OF OMRON AND HENRY SCHEIN & CO.

Defendant lists "A representative/technical specialist from Omron Healthcare, Inc.," and "A representative/technical specialist from Henry Schein & Co." as witnesses he may call. (Doc. 45 at 3.) Omron is the manufacturer of the blood pressure device and Henry Schein & Co. is the vendor of the electronic record-keeping system used at Dixieland Dental. Assuming defendant has disclosed these witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and (e), the ruling on whether their testimony is relevant is reserved for trial.

WITNESSES DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff objects to witnesses defendant may call described as:

(Doc. 45 at 3-4.)

Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(i) requires a party to provide the opposing party "(i) the name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number of each witness — separately identifying those the party expects to present and those it may call if the need arises." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(i). Clearly, these witnesses are not named. Moreover, the court finds there to be no justification for failing to list a witness whose name appears on a document should a party perceive a potential need for that witness's testimony. Plaintiff's objection to these witnesses is SUSTAINED.

DEPOSITION EXCERPTS

Plaintiff has filed notice of her intent to use portions of the deposition testimony of Dr. Guy Rosenstiel. (Doc. 64.) Defendant raises a number of objections to the relevancy and prejudice of the designated deposition testimony. These objections must await trial.

Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3)(B), the only objections that are required before trial are objections to the use of the deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B). Rule 32(a)(1) set forth three condition to the use of all or part of a deposition at trial:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(1)(footnote added).

To the extent that plaintiff intends to offer these excerpts from Dr. Rosenstiel's deposition during cross-examination pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2), the court finds that the deposition excerpts are not subject to objection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(1). Therefore, defendant's Objection to the excerpts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a) are OVERRULED. Defendant's request that objections on the listed pages be deleted and not presented to the trier of fact is GRANTED. Moreover, the court declines to rule on defendant's objections pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401-403; such objections should be returned when and if the deposition excerpts are offered.

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT LIST

DR. ROTHROCK'S CV

Defendant objects to admission of Dr. Rothrock's CV "on the ground[ ] that Dr. Rothrock is due to be excluded as an expert witness." (Doc. 49 at 2.) Defendant's objection is OVERRULED. Dr. Rothrock may testify as set forth in the previous court orders. (Docs. 34 and 62.)

DR. GARCIA'S CV

Defendant objects on the ground that Dr. Garcia cannot offer expert testimony; therefore, his CV is irrelevant and its probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice and confusing and misleading the jury. Defendant assertion of any prejudice or confusion is refuted by his listing the CV of every treating physician, including Dr. Garcia, as an Exhibit on his Exhibit List.8 Nevertheless, plaintiff has withdrawn Exhibit 18; defendant's Objection is SUSTAINED.

MEDICAL LITERATURE

Defendant objects to plaintiff's Exhibits 19-26, (doc. 49 at 4-10), which are articles and case studies in medical literature,9 the relevant portions of which plaintiff asserts she intends to read "after a proper foundation is established pursuant to [Fed. R. Evid.] 803(18)," (doc. 41 at 2-4). The parties have agreed that these articles will not be offered or read during trial.

Therefore, defendant's objections are MOOT.

LIST OF DIXIELAND DENTAL EMPLOYEES

Defendant objects to plaintiff Exhibit 27, a list of Dixieland Dental employees. In response, plaintiff withdraws Exhibit 27 but states she will only use the list during voir dire examination of potential jurors.

Defendant's objection is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff may not seek to admit as evidence a list of Dixieland Dental employees.

DEFENDANT'S DRAWING OF OPERATORY 15 AND THE SURROUNDING AREA

Defendant objects to his admission of his hand-drawing of the area in the Dixieland Dental Office of Operatory 15 and the surrounding area, which is attached to his deposition. He contends that the sketch should not be offered on the ground that it is just a rough sketch and that it is not draw to scale; he also objects on the ground that the drawing is not relevant or material.

Plaintiff contends that defendant drew the sketch during questioning of where he was in relation to Mr. Murphy following the procedure at issue. Such information is relevant and would be helpful to the jury. The court does not have a copy of the exhibit and it does not have a scale diagram of the same area. Therefore, it cannot prejudge the accuracy or inaccuracy of the drawing. Therefore, it will not rule on the admissibility of Exhibit 28, the drawing itself, at this time. DIAGRAM OF TEETH

Defendant objects to plaintiff's Exhibit 30, which is a diagram of teeth used during defendant's deposition. Defendant contends that this diagram is irrelevant and immaterial. The court disagrees. A set of teeth or a diagram may be helpful to the jury in understanding the procedure performed on Mr. Murphy. Defendant's objection is OVERRULED.

OTHER EXHIBITS TO DEPOSITIONS

Defendant objects to plaintiff's Exhibits 29, 31-36,10 on the ground that these documents are included in Mr. Murphy's treatment record from Dixieland Dental. Plaintiff contends these objections are moot given the parties agreement regarding the treatment records. Defendant's Objections to plaintiff's Exhibits 29 and 31-36 are SUSTAINED. Plaintiff shall not offer any individual document or other part of Mr. Murphy's medical treatment records as an exhibit separate from the compete record of medical treatment as stipulated in the Pretrial Order.

EXPERTS' BILLING RECORDS

Defendant objects to plaintiff's Exhibits 38-40 on the ground that the description of the exhibit is vague, nonspecific and overly broad. In response plaintiff contends that she only intends to offer the billing records of the experts in order to show interest and/or bias.

Defendant's Objections to Exhibits 38-40 are SUSTAINED. Nevertheless plaintiff may question the experts regarding their compensation for work on this case.

MR. MURPHY'S DENTURES

Defendant objects to plaintiff admitting Mr. Murphy's dentures made by Dixieland Dental, Exhibit 44, on relevancy grounds as well as Ala. Code § 6-5-551. The dentures were part of the services/treatment Mr. Murphy sought on March 5, 2014. Therefore, the dentures may be relevant to show what happened that day. The court will not rule on the admissibility of the dentures at this time, except to state that they are not inadmissible pursuant to Ala., Code § 6-5-551.

DEMONSTRATIVE AIDS

Defendant objects to plaintiff's Exhibits 45 ("enlargements of the relevant and pertinent parts of any exhibits listed above") and 46 ("demonstrative aids, including but not limited to x-rays, radiographs, CT scans, MRI scans, medical illustrations and/or enlargements of medical illustrations, video medical illustrations, video medical animations, anatomy models, diagrams, photographs, or other items that may be used for demonstrative purposes during the course of the trial of this case (such demonstrative aids are not expected to be offered into evidence as exhibits)")

The court allows parties to use enlargements of exhibits that are admitted during trial for demonstrative purposes only. Enlargements and demonstrative aids are not themselves admitted as evidence. Defendant's Objections to the admissibility of Exhibits 45 and 46 are SUSTAINED. However, enlargements and demonstrative aids may be used during trial after the admission of the underlying Exhibit.

FAILSAFE EXHIBITS

Plaintiff lists a number of Exhibits, which appear to be titled so as to include each and every document that plaintiff may possibly wish to introduce. These exhibits are not listed with the specificity required in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(iii). However, in response to defendant's Objections, plaintiff has withdrawn Exhibits 37, 41, 42, 48, 49, and 50.

The court SUSTAINS defendant's objections to plaintiff's Exhibits 37, 41, 42, 48, 49, and 50. Plaintiff shall not offer any document included in its Exhibit List only in one of the composite or categorical Exhibits 37, 41, 42, 48, 49, and 50.

"Exhibit 47" states, "Plaintiff reserves the right to use any document necessary for the purpose of impeachment or rebuttal." To the extent plaintiff seeks to admit documents that are "present[ed] at trial . . . solely for impeachment," those documents are not required to be disclosed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A).

CONCLUSION

The Objections filed by the parties are SUSTAINED or OVERRULED as set forth in this Opinion and Order. The court reserves ruling at trial on certain objections as set forth herein.