Enertrode, Inc. v. General Capacitor Co., 16-cv-02458-HSG. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20181114c86
Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO CORRECT FILING ERROR Re: Dkt. No. 286 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . On November 8, 2018, the parties submitted a joint filing regarding disputed deposition testimony designations. See Dkt. No. 279. 1 On November 10, 2018, the Court ruled on the admissibility of deposition designations identified in the joint filing. See Dkt. No. 283. On November 11, 2018, Defendants submitted this motion, asking the Court to rule on additional disputed deposition
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO CORRECT FILING ERROR Re: Dkt. No. 286 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . On November 8, 2018, the parties submitted a joint filing regarding disputed deposition testimony designations. See Dkt. No. 279. 1 On November 10, 2018, the Court ruled on the admissibility of deposition designations identified in the joint filing. See Dkt. No. 283. On November 11, 2018, Defendants submitted this motion, asking the Court to rule on additional disputed deposition ..
More
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO CORRECT FILING ERROR
Re: Dkt. No. 286
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
On November 8, 2018, the parties submitted a joint filing regarding disputed deposition testimony designations. See Dkt. No. 279.1 On November 10, 2018, the Court ruled on the admissibility of deposition designations identified in the joint filing. See Dkt. No. 283. On November 11, 2018, Defendants submitted this motion, asking the Court to rule on additional disputed deposition designations, which the parties unintentionally omitted from the November 8, 2018 joint filing. See Dkt. No. 286. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs do not object to the Court's consideration of this motion. Id. at 2.
Having considered the parties' arguments, the Court rules on the admissibility of the additional deposition designations as follows2:
RELATED
EXHIBIT DEPONENT DESIGNATION RULING
Ex. 1.1 Lewis, Darrell 19:05-24 Objection overruled
Ex. 2.1 Lewis, Darrell 20:20-34:19 Objection overruled
Ex. 4.1 Lewis, Darrell 73:06-74:11 Objection overruled
Ex. 5.1 Lewis, Darrell 154:09-17 Objection overruled. The parties are
directed to meet and confer regarding the
admissibility of Defendants' proposed
cross-designation—150:9-152:2—the
pages for which the parties did not provide
the Court for consideration.
Ex. 6.1 Zhao, Wei 23:13-22 Objections overruled
Ex. 7.1 Zhao, Wei 32:17-21 Objection overruled
Ex. 8.1 Zhao, Wei 33:14-34:01 Objection overruled
Ex. 9.1 Zhao, Wei 51:25-54:07 Overruled as to relevance objection.
Sustained as to hearsay objection.
Ex. 10.1 Zhao, Wei 75:25-76:17 Objection overruled. It appears there is no
dispute that the testimony is only relevant
to spoliation.
Ex. 11.2 Zhao, Wei 105:08-20 Objections overruled
Ex. 12.1 Zhao, Wei 106:25-107:17 The Court previously ruled that this
testimony is admissible, but subject to a
limiting instruction because the testimony
is not offered for the truth of the matter
asserted. See Dkt. No. 283, at 2.
Ex. 13.1 St. John, Robert 13:19-14:11 Objection overruled
Ex. 14.1 St. John, Robert 28:14-29:05 Objections overruled
Ex. 15.1 St. John, Robert 30:17-31:06 Objections overruled
Ex. 16.1 St. John, Robert 40:01-07 Objection overruled
Ex. 17.1 St. John, Robert 41:21-42:13 Objection overruled
Ex. 18.1 St. John, Robert 42:16-43:25 Objection sustained
Ex. 19.1 St. John, Robert 48:12-18 Objections overruled
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Attachments to the joint filing were submitted on November 9, 2018. See Dkt. Nos. 280-81.
2. The Court does not address withdrawn designations or objections.
Source: Leagle
