Filed: Dec. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER R. STAN BAKER , District Judge . Plaintiff ROW Equipment, Inc. and Defendant Terex USA, LLC filed nine Joint Deposition Designations on October 11, 2019. (Docs. 109-117.) Each filing contains the parties' respective designations as well as any objections by the opposing party. ( See Docs. 111, 112, 115.) Additionally, Defendant submitted a brief further detailing the bases for each of their objections. (Doc. 118.) Upon consideration and as set forth below, the Court OVERRULES IN PA
Summary: ORDER R. STAN BAKER , District Judge . Plaintiff ROW Equipment, Inc. and Defendant Terex USA, LLC filed nine Joint Deposition Designations on October 11, 2019. (Docs. 109-117.) Each filing contains the parties' respective designations as well as any objections by the opposing party. ( See Docs. 111, 112, 115.) Additionally, Defendant submitted a brief further detailing the bases for each of their objections. (Doc. 118.) Upon consideration and as set forth below, the Court OVERRULES IN PAR..
More
ORDER
R. STAN BAKER, District Judge.
Plaintiff ROW Equipment, Inc. and Defendant Terex USA, LLC filed nine Joint Deposition Designations on October 11, 2019. (Docs. 109-117.) Each filing contains the parties' respective designations as well as any objections by the opposing party. (See Docs. 111, 112, 115.) Additionally, Defendant submitted a brief further detailing the bases for each of their objections. (Doc. 118.) Upon consideration and as set forth below, the Court OVERRULES IN PART and SUSTAINS IN PART the objections raised in the Joint Deposition Designations for witnesses Barry De Lau, (doc. 111), Thomas Feichtinger, (doc. 112), and Matthew Sanders, (doc. 115).
I. Deposition of Barry De Lau (Doc. 111)
A) Plaintiff's Objection to Page 21, lines 16 through 24
This objection is OVERRULED.
II. Deposition of Thomas Feichtinger (Doc. 112)
A) Defendant's Objection to Page 5, line 24 through Page 7, line 17
This objection is SUSTAINED as to page 5, line 24 through page 7, line 11, for lack of relevancy in addition to the reasons stated by Defendant. (See doc. 118, p. 5.) However, Defendant's objection is OVERRULED as to the remaining portion of the designated testimony, page 7, lines 12 through 17.
B) Plaintiff's Objection to Page 27, line 12 through Page 28, line 8
This objection is OVERRULED.
III. Deposition of Matthew Sanders (Doc. 115)
A) Defendant's Objection to Page 9, line 24 through Page 10, line 6
This objection is OVERRULED.
B) Plaintiff's Objection to Page 11, lines 17 through 18
This objection is OVERRULED.
C) Defendant's Objection to Page 16, lines 8 through 15
This objection is OVERRULED.
D) Plaintiff's Objection to Page 17, lines 8 through 10
This objection is OVERRULED.
E) Defendant's Objection to Page 18, lines 4 through 9
This objection is OVERRULED.
F) Defendant's Objection to Page 22, lines 14 through 18
This objection is OVERRULED.
G) Plaintiff's Objection to Page 30, lines 20 through 23
This objection is SUSTAINED.
H) Plaintiff's objection to Page 32, lines 11 through 20
This objection is SUSTAINED.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART and OVERRULES IN PART the objections raised in the Joint Deposition Designations for witnesses Barry De Lau, (doc. 111), Thomas Feichtinger, (doc. 112), and Matthew Sanders, (doc. 115).
SO ORDERED.
