CHOPOURIAN v. WEST, CIV S-09-2972 KJM KJN. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120202983
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2012
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge. The parties have submitted additional excerpts from volume two of the videotaped deposition of Renee Dodge that plaintiff seeks to introduce at trial. ECF No. 205. The court has previously ruled on some of these excerpts and will not repeat those rulings. The court finds the following portions designated by plaintiff admissible, with the understanding that objections and comments of counsel will not be included: 164:13-23; 167:3-10; 178:19-22; 179:13-180
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge. The parties have submitted additional excerpts from volume two of the videotaped deposition of Renee Dodge that plaintiff seeks to introduce at trial. ECF No. 205. The court has previously ruled on some of these excerpts and will not repeat those rulings. The court finds the following portions designated by plaintiff admissible, with the understanding that objections and comments of counsel will not be included: 164:13-23; 167:3-10; 178:19-22; 179:13-180:..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge.
The parties have submitted additional excerpts from volume two of the videotaped deposition of Renee Dodge that plaintiff seeks to introduce at trial. ECF No. 205. The court has previously ruled on some of these excerpts and will not repeat those rulings. The court finds the following portions designated by plaintiff admissible, with the understanding that objections and comments of counsel will not be included: 164:13-23; 167:3-10; 178:19-22; 179:13-180:1-8; 190:22-191:1-5; 206:15-20; 211:6-15; 295:19-296:1; 296:7-12 and 18-21; 329:12-16; 332:10-22; 332:25-334-8; 335:24-336:9; 336:16-25.
The court approves defendant's counter-designations of 165:7-9 and 12-22; 167:23-168:1 and 168:7-16; 192:6-10; 192:14-193:1; 207:1-3 and 5-19; 209:8-210:10.
To the extent an excerpt is not addressed above or in the court's prior order, it is not approved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
