Phillips v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 1:10-cv-262-MR. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150831a19
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court to resolve Defendant Reddaway's objections to Plaintiffs' deposition designations of Edward Eggert. Reddaway's objections were not filed with the Court, so the objections are attached hereto as an exhibit. According to the Court's Amended Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan [Doc. 85], the parties were directed to file line and page designations of any depositions that counsel intended to introduce at trial, as
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court to resolve Defendant Reddaway's objections to Plaintiffs' deposition designations of Edward Eggert. Reddaway's objections were not filed with the Court, so the objections are attached hereto as an exhibit. According to the Court's Amended Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan [Doc. 85], the parties were directed to file line and page designations of any depositions that counsel intended to introduce at trial, as w..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court to resolve Defendant Reddaway's objections to Plaintiffs' deposition designations of Edward Eggert. Reddaway's objections were not filed with the Court, so the objections are attached hereto as an exhibit.
According to the Court's Amended Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan [Doc. 85], the parties were directed to file line and page designations of any depositions that counsel intended to introduce at trial, as well as the objections thereto, in time for such objections to be resolved at the final pretrial conference. [Id., ¶ II.C.(3)]. The parties failed to comply with the Court's Pretrial Order in this regard. While the parties have since filed their designations and objections, neither party filed a copy of the contested deposition excerpts from Mr. Eggert's deposition. The Court is thus unable to rule on Reddaway's objections. Therefore, the Court will allow only those portions of Mr. Eggert's deposition to which no objection was raised, to be introduced into evidence.
SO ORDERED.
DEFENDANT REDDAWAY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, INC. OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS OF RAYMOND LECKI AND EDWARD EGGERT
Objections to Plaintiffs' Designation for Raymond Lecki Deposition of 05/17/2012
Page/Line Objections
16:2-25 Leading question. Hearsay
17:1-5 Hearsay
23:1-19 Lack of relevance
30:16-25 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
31:1-4 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
33:4-19 Lack of relevance. Hearsay.
36:22-25 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
37:1-25 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
38:1-2 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
40:21-25 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
41:1-9 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
43:18-25 Lack of relevance. No foundation. Prejudicial.
44:1-6, 18-25 Lack of relevance. No foundation. Prejudicial.
45:1-25 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
46:1-25 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
47:1-25 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
48:1-20 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
49:12-21 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
50:9-25 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
51:1-25 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
52:1-25 Lack of relevance. Confusing to the jury.
53:1-15 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
54:1-25 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
55:1-25 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
56:1-25 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
57:1-25 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
58:1-25 Lack of relevance.
59:1-25 Lack of relevance.
60:1-25 Lack of relevance.
61:1-25 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
62:1-25 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
63:1-25 Lack of relevance. Prejudicial.
64:1-25 No foundation. Hearsay. Relevance.
65:1-25 No foundation. Hearsay. Relevance.
66:1-25 No foundation. Hearsay. Relevance.
67:1-25 No foundation. Hearsay. Relevance.
68:1-13 No foundation. Hearsay. Relevance.
70:18-24 Leading.
71:1-25 Leading.
72:1-25 Leading. Lack of relevance.
73:1-12 Lack of relevance.
77:20-23 No foundation. Calls for speculation. Expert opinion.
78:22-25 No foundation. Leading.
79:1-9 No foundation. Leading.
80:9-25 No foundation. Leading. Hearsay.
81:1-21 No foundation. Leading. Hearsay.
82:1-25 Lack of relevance.
83:1-25 Lack of relevance.
84:1-25 Lack of relevance.
85;1-21 Lack of relevance.
86:1-25 Lack of relevance.
87:1-25 Lack of relevance. Leading. No foundation.
88:1-25 Lack of relevance. Leading.
89:1-25 Lack of relevance. Leading.
90:1-12 Lack of relevance.
92:1-25 Lack of relevance. Calls for speculation. No foundation.
Prejudicial
93:1-25 Lack of relevance. Calls for speculation. No foundation.
Prejudicial
94:1-25 Lack of relevance. Calls for speculation. No foundation.
95:1-25 Lack of relevance. No foundation.
96:1-10 Lack of relevance.
105:4-10 Lack of relevance.
106:25 Lack of relevance.
107:1-25 Lack of relevance.
108:1-25 Lack of relevance.
109:1-20 Lack of relevance.
111:7-25 Lack of relevance.
112:1-25 Lack of relevance.
113:1-25 Lack of relevance.
114:1-25 Lack of relevance.
115:1-2 Lack of relevance. Duplicative.
Counter-designations for Raymond Lecki Deposition of 05/17/2012
Page/Lines
96:24-25
97:3-10, 16-25
98:23-25
99:1-25
100:1-25
101:1-25
102:1-2
Objections to Plaintiffs' Designations to Edward Eggert Deposition of 6/15/1993
Page/Line Objections
6:18-20 Lack of relevance.
9:9-14,24-25 Lack of relevance. Unrelated party.
10:2-5 Lack of relevance.
18:-22 Duplicative
Source: Leagle
