Filed: Jun. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . In an effort to save time during trial, the parties are designating their respective objections regarding the deposition testimony to be read at trial (Docs. 71-76; 78-79; 82) The Court has considered the objections submitted by the defendant relative to the May 11, 2017 deposition of Plaintiff Danny Ruark (Doc. 73), the May 9, 2017 deposition of Dr. Brett Taylor (Doc. 74), and the deposition of Derek Johnson (Doc. 79). The Court's rulings on said
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . In an effort to save time during trial, the parties are designating their respective objections regarding the deposition testimony to be read at trial (Docs. 71-76; 78-79; 82) The Court has considered the objections submitted by the defendant relative to the May 11, 2017 deposition of Plaintiff Danny Ruark (Doc. 73), the May 9, 2017 deposition of Dr. Brett Taylor (Doc. 74), and the deposition of Derek Johnson (Doc. 79). The Court's rulings on said o..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
In an effort to save time during trial, the parties are designating their respective objections regarding the deposition testimony to be read at trial (Docs. 71-76; 78-79; 82) The Court has considered the objections submitted by the defendant relative to the May 11, 2017 deposition of Plaintiff Danny Ruark (Doc. 73), the May 9, 2017 deposition of Dr. Brett Taylor (Doc. 74), and the deposition of Derek Johnson (Doc. 79). The Court's rulings on said objections are as follows:
Danny Ruark's Deposition dated May 11, 2017
As to Danny Ruark's May 11, 2017 Deposition, the Court's rulings go through the objections included in Defendant's Designations of Video Deposition of Danny Ruark Dated May 11, 2017 (Doc. 73, pgs. 2-3).
Page Lines Objections Court's Ruling
11 22-25 Relevancy and materiality Objection overruled
12 1-25 Relevancy and materiality Objection overruled as to lines 1-5, but
sustained as to relevance and materiality
regarding lines 6-25
13 1;6-24 Relevancy and materiality Objection sustained as to relevance and
materiality regarding line 1 and lines 6-24
17 16-25 Narrative; non-responsive; Objection overruled as to narrative and
violation of motion in violation of motion in limine, but sustained as
limine; hearsay to hearsay starting from line 22 at "And they"
through end of page
18 1-25 Narrative; non-responsive; Objection as to hearsay sustained regarding
violation of motion in lines 18-21 through the words "fit the drill."
limine; hearsay Objection sustained beginning on line 21 with
words "The drill was" to end of page as to
violation of motion in limine. Objections as to
all other lines and for other reasons,
overruled.
19 1-20 Narrative; non-responsive; Objection sustained through line 10 and words
violation of motion in "made them happy." as violation of the motion
limine; hearsay in limine. Objections as to all other lines and
for other reasons, overruled.
21 15-25 Hearsay — reasked Objection as to hearsay sustained beginning on
line 15 with words "And they" through end of
page. All other objections and lines overruled.
28 9-19 Relevancy and materiality; Objection sustained as to hearsay but not
hearsay relevance or materiality.
29 15-25 Relevancy and materiality; Objection sustained as to relevance and
hearsay materiality but not hearsay.
30 1-25 Relevancy and materiality Objection sustained as to relevance and
materiality.
31 1-25 Relevancy and materiality Objection sustained as to relevance and
materiality regarding lines 1-8. The Court
defers on the balance of the objection until the
Court has an opportunity to see Exhibit 1.
Generally, the Court will not disallow wage
loss evidence on the basis of relevance and
materiality unless it is during a period when
the plaintiff was incarcerated.
32 1-17 Relevancy and materiality The Court defers on the balance of the
objection until he has an opportunity to see
Exhibit 1. Generally, the Court will not
disallow wage loss evidence on the basis of
relevance and materiality unless it is during a
period when the plaintiff was incarcerated.
Dr. Brett Taylor's Deposition dated May 9, 2017
As to Dr. Brett Taylor's May 9, 2017 deposition, the Court's rulings go through the objections included in Defendant's Designations and Objections of Video Deposition of Dr. Brett Taylor Dated May 9, 2017 (Doc. 74, pg. 2).
Defendant's objections based on non-disclosed expert witness and hearsay are overruled as per the Court's in court ruling on May 31, 2017.
Defendant's objections as to pages 19 and 20 for no foundation and no evidence to support are overruled as well, lacking a basis for said objections.
Also, the language during the deposition from plaintiff's lawyer that he is tendering the witness as an expert witness should be removed since the Court will not endorse the witness as an expert witness in the presence of the jury, and the jury will be instructed regarding how they should regard witnesses who give opinion testimony.
Derek Johnson's Deposition
As to Derek Johnson's deposition, the Court's ruling addresses the objections included in Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Designations Video Evidence Deposition of Derek Johnson (Doc. 79). Defendant objects to the designations that concern attorneys speaking to one another during the deposition, or objections that were withdrawn by defendant. Defendant's objections to the designations contained in Doc. 79 are sustained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
