Howard v. Offshore Liftboats, LLC, 13-4811 (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20160209939
Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS SUSIE MORGAN , District Judge . Before the Court are Plaintiff Raymond Howard's objections to the designations of his deposition submitted by Defendant Offshore Liftboats, LLC ("OLB"). The Court has considered the objections and rules as follows: OBJECTION RULING Page 29, lines 18 through 22 call for Sustained. opinion testimony from a lay witness, not designated as an expert. Page 88, lines 19 through 21 i
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS SUSIE MORGAN , District Judge . Before the Court are Plaintiff Raymond Howard's objections to the designations of his deposition submitted by Defendant Offshore Liftboats, LLC ("OLB"). The Court has considered the objections and rules as follows: OBJECTION RULING Page 29, lines 18 through 22 call for Sustained. opinion testimony from a lay witness, not designated as an expert. Page 88, lines 19 through 21 is..
More
ORDER AND REASONS
SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are Plaintiff Raymond Howard's objections to the designations of his deposition submitted by Defendant Offshore Liftboats, LLC ("OLB"). The Court has considered the objections and rules as follows:
OBJECTION RULING
Page 29, lines 18 through 22 call for Sustained.
opinion testimony from a lay witness, not
designated as an expert.
Page 88, lines 19 through 21 is hearsay. Sustained.
Page 89, lines 3 through 7 is hearsay. Overruled.
Page 89, line 17 is incomplete since Mr. Sustained.
Howard's testimony ends on line 19. Add lines 18 through 19.
Page 90. His answers provided are not in Sustained.
the context. Omitted is page 90, lines 5
through 25 to keep the question and
answer in context.
Page 92, line 10 through line 23 is Overruled.
irrelevant in that no such evidence has
been introduced. Additionally the
questions call for opinion testimony from
a law witness.
Same objections for Page 93 as Page 92. Overruled.
Page 98, lines 7 through 15 are hearsay. Overruled.
Page 99, lines 21 through 25 are Mr. Sustained.
Howard's complete answers to the Add lines 22 through 25.
questions.
Page 101, lines 2 through 6 are asked and Sustained.
answered in Mr. Howard's previous
question on page 100, lines 13 through 18
which are included in OLB's prior
question. Also, if the Court allows page
101, line 4 through 6, the entire question
must be read to the jury which begins on
line 2. The answer is taken out of context
by not including the whole question.
Page 104, line 13 through line 2 seek Sustained.
opinion testimony from a lay witness with
no foundation.
Page 129, line 3 through Page 130, line 14 Sustained.
are irrelevant.
Page 137, lines 7 through 9 seek opinion Overruled.
testimony.
Page 164, lines 2 through 8 seek opinion Sustained.
testimony and are irrelevant since there is
no testimony. Also the answer went back
to Page 164, line 13.
Page 164, lines 18 through 24 seek expert Sustained.
opinion and are irrelevant since there is no
testimony that the lift basket did not
contain a tag line.
Page 175, lines 17 through 19 are Overruled.
objectionable since there is no evidence
there was no tag line.
Page 186, line 23 through Page 187, line 8 Overruled, but add lines 9 through 10 on
seeks pinion testimony from a lay witness. Page 187.
In the event the Court does not sustain this
objection, the answer goes to line 10 on
Page 187.
Page 188, lines 13 through 22; Page 190, Overruled.
lines 3 through 8, and lines 21 through 25;
Page 191, lines 1 through 3 seek expert
opinion from a lay witness.
Page 192, lines 20 through 23 seek expert Overruled, but add lines 14 through 19.
opinion and are taken out of context.
Page 217, line 22. Mr. Howard's answer is Sustained.
incomplete. His answer ends at line 23.
Pages 222 and 223. The answer to the Sustained.
question ends on Page 224. Delete attorney colloquy.
Page 237, line 20 is an answer to a Sustained.
question with no question included. Add lines 18 through 19.
Page 265, line 15 is not the end of his Sustained.
answer. The answer ends on line 22 and Delete attorney colloquy.
Page 266, lines 5 through 11.
Page 271, line 20 through Page 272, line 4 Overruled.
and Page 272 line 19 through 21 calls for
expert opinion as can be seen by reading
page 273.
Page 279, line 11 through Page 280, line 4 Overruled.
calls for expert opinion and cannot be
answered by this witness because he does
not know what the deckhand is seeing.
Page 301, line 15 through Page 302 are Sustained.
taken out of context. The whole line of Add additional lines.
questioning on the issue of throwing his
son a football begins on Page 301, line 15
and ends on Page 302, line 25.
Page 303, line 22 should be included for Sustained.
completeness.
Page 305, lines 20 through 25 are fine so Sustained.
long as Page 305, line 14 through Page
306, line 7 are included so that the answer
to the question is not taken out of context.
The designations on Page 312 through Overruled.
Page 315 are objectionable since the
predicate contained on Page 312, line 7,
which is that the doctor has released Mr.
Howard to go back to work. This line of
questioning is completely taken out of
context as none of the questioning has that
predicate. Because no doctor has cleared
Mr. Howard to return to work, these
questions are irrelevant.
Plaintiff Raymond Howard also cross-designated certain portions of his deposition for redirect examination. Raymond submitted the following cross-designations:
• Page 15, lines 14 through 22.
• Page 16, lines 8 through 15.
• Page 30, line 7 through line 10.
• Page 30, lines 21 through 25.
• Page 91, line 1 through Page 92, line 9.
• Page 95, lines 10 through 18.
• Page 99, line 22 through Page 100, line 7.
• Page 101, lines 7 through 20.
• Page 103, line 19 through Page 105, line 24.
• Page 130, lines 15 through 22.
• Page 164, lines 8 through 13.
• Page 174, line 22 through Page 175, line 4.
• Page 223, line 9 through Page 224, line 5.
• Page 224, line 19 through Page 225, line 4.
The Court will not allow Raymond's cross-designations to be read to the jury. Counsel for Plaintiff Raymond Howard took Raymond on direct examination and had the opportunity to elicit testimony from him at that time. Raymond only became a hostile witness on cross-examination, prompting the need for OLB to designate portions of Raymond's deposition testimony. This is not an opportunity for Raymond's counsel to also designate additional testimony from Raymond's deposition.
Source: Leagle
