Brewster et al v. Southern Home Rentals, LLC et al

Filing 111

ORDER that the 102 Joint Listing of Deposition Objections Needing Court Ruling is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 12/7/2012. (jg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION

HOWARD SCOTT BREWSTER and
MELANIE BREWSTER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SOUTHERN HOME RENTALS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:11cv872-WHA
(wo)

ORDER
This cause is before the court on objections to deposition designations which have been
filed by the Plaintiffs and by the Defendant.
After the objections to designations were filed, the parties requested a telephone
conference with the court, and filed a Joint Listing of Deposition Objections Needing Court
Ruling (Doc. #102).
The court conducted a telephone conference on December 6, 2012, during which the
parties argued their objections to the deposition designations still in contention, and the court
indicated then, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
A. As to the objections to Dr. Win Lyle’s deposition testimony at the following pages:
51:23-52:3 this objection is SUSTAINED because the question is leading.
52:18-54:22 the objection is OVERRULED, however, the only portion of Exhibit #44,
referenced within the deposition, which can be shown to the jury based on this deposition
testimony is page one, and the cost amounts on that page must first be redacted.
59:5-59:18 the objection to the potential complications of knee replacement surgery is

OVERRULED.
102:12–102:26 and 119: 7–120:4–the objection is OVERRULED as to testimony
concerning Kathy Willard’s presence in Dr. Lyle’s office, although this point appears to be one
relevant only to impeachment.
114:17-115:6 is leading and the objection is SUSTAINED. Because the testimony is
more fully developed after these lines, during the status conference the Plaintiffs counterdesignated lines 115:17–116:1.
B. As to the objections to Dr. Meadows’s deposition at page 39:19–41:12 the objection is
SUSTAINED. While the court understands from the parties that although there is a stipulation as
to the bills owed by the Brewsters, the Defendant still contends some of those amounts may be
reduced by the doctors, the testimony designated does not sufficiently support that point to be
relevant, and the issue itself is so speculative as to be irrelevant, and even if there is some
probative value, it is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues and
misleading the jury pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403.
C. As to the objections to Chris Hedberg’s deposition at the following pages:
21:7–22:8–the objection to the description of Brewster’s injuries at the scene is
OVERRULED.
24:23–25:01 and 26:12–26:21–the objection to Hedberg’s opinion that Brewster had done
nothing wrong, did not cause the accident, and was a cautious driver is SUSTAINED because
such evidence is irrelevant in this case, in which liability has been admitted, and any probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues under Rule 403.
30:19-31:6–the objection to Hedberg’s description of April Jones crying at the scene is
SUSTAINED as irrelevant. Testimony as to April Jones’s action could become relevant as

rebuttal if a suggestion is made, not merely an inference, that April Jones was indifferent to
Brewster’s injuries.
36:20–38.5–the objection to this testimony is SUSTAINED as irrelevant. The court will
discuss more fully the extent to which urinalysis evidence is or is not admissible in this case, but
Hedberg’s testimony on this point is beyond his personal knowledge and irrelevant.
D. Officer James Daniel
10:8–10:17 and 12:2–14:11 during the telephone conference, counsel for the Plaintiff
pointed out that he would only offer that portion of the video tape depicting the accident in
question which shows the officer pulling to a stop, followed by the actual accident. Subject to
that limitation, the objection is OVERRULED.
36:5–36:21 and 37:7–37:14 the objections to testimony that Daniel rides a motorcycle
and was once in an accident with a deer is SUSTAINED. The court will address more fully in
connection with the Motion in Limine the admissibility of evidence regarding motorcycles
generally, but Officer Daniel’s testimony on this point is irrelevant, and any possible probative
value is substantially outweighed by the risk of confusion of the issues under Rule 403.

Done this 7th day of December, 2012.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE