WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE, INC., 4-cv-062-wmc. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20151006h14
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM M. CONLEY , District Judge . Before the court is defendant Apple's motion for ruling on WARF's objections to certain deposition designations of two witnesses: Webb and Moshovos. (Dkt. #501.) After reviewing WARF's opposition (dkt. #509), the court issues the following rulings: Webb • Webb's testimony regarding the development of the EV6 store wait table (20): sustained. WARF objects to Webb's testimony in response to a question as to when "the conception of the store wa
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM M. CONLEY , District Judge . Before the court is defendant Apple's motion for ruling on WARF's objections to certain deposition designations of two witnesses: Webb and Moshovos. (Dkt. #501.) After reviewing WARF's opposition (dkt. #509), the court issues the following rulings: Webb • Webb's testimony regarding the development of the EV6 store wait table (20): sustained. WARF objects to Webb's testimony in response to a question as to when "the conception of the store wai..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY, District Judge.
Before the court is defendant Apple's motion for ruling on WARF's objections to certain deposition designations of two witnesses: Webb and Moshovos. (Dkt. #501.) After reviewing WARF's opposition (dkt. #509), the court issues the following rulings:
Webb
• Webb's testimony regarding the development of the EV6 store wait table (20): sustained. WARF objects to Webb's testimony in response to a question as to when "the conception of the store wait table happened." (Webb Dep. (dkt. #227) 20.) The court agrees with WARF that the use of the word."conception" encompasses a legal concept for which Webb as a lay witness may not provide testimony.
• Webb's testimony regarding a presentation (40-41): overruled. WARF objects to Webb's testimony acknowledging certain statements made in a slide presentation by a third-party and explaining what those statement meant to him. The court will reserve on the admissibility of the slide presentation itself on hearsay grounds, but Webb's recollection and understanding of the statements in the presentation are independent and not subject to a hearsay objection.
Andrew Moshovos
• Moshovos' testimony regarding an email with colleague George Chrysos about a prior art reference (292-96): sustained. WARF objects to this designation as non-responsive, confusing, and lack of foundation. The court agrees that Moshovos' response does not answer the questions asked and is a rambling narrative. Even Apple's counsel sought to strike the answer as nonresponsive. (Moshovos Dep. (dkt. #235) 296.)
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Apple's motion for rulings on WARF's objections to certain designations (dkt. #501) is GRANTED, and the objections are sustained in part and overruled in part as provided above.
Source: Leagle
