Sandpiper Resorts Development Corporation, et al. v. Global Realty Investments, LLC et al
ORDER with court's ruling on objections to exhibits and deposition designations. See PDF document. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 4/10/13. (JWS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sandpiper Resorts Development
Corporation, et al.,
Global Realty Investments, LLC, et al.,
ORDER AND OPINION
(Objections to Exhibits and
I. MATTERS ADDRESSED
Plaintiffs’ amended exhibit list is at docket 338-1. Defendants’ objections to
plaintiff’s exhibits and deposition designations are at docket 341. Plaintiffs’ response in
support of exhibits and deposition designations is at docket 342.
Defendants’ amended exhibit list is at docket 337-1. Plaintiffs’ objections to the
exhibits are at docket 340. Defendants’ response in support of exhibits is at docket 343.
Defendants’ deposition designations are at docket 335-1. Plaintiffs’ amended
objections to defendants’ deposition designations are at docket 344. Defendants’
amended response in support of deposition designations is at docket 345.
The parties have provided copies of their exhibits and relevant deposition
transcripts for the court’s review.
II. RULINGS ON ADMISSION OF EXHIBITS
A. Exhibits Not Subject To An Objection
All exhibits listed on the parties’ exhibit lists as to which no objection was taken
B. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits
1, 3, 20, 23, and 24
27 and 31
46 and 47
Exhibits as to which objections have been overruled or the objections withdrawn
are ADMITTED; those as to which objections have been sustained are NOT
ADMITTED. Note that where a response to a hearsay objection represented that the
document was not offered for its truth, if the court overruled the objection, the document
is not admitted for the truth of its contents.
C. Defendants’ Exhibits
A and B
C and I
Sustained (but may be used for impeachment
M thru X
Y and Z
AA and BB
CC, DD, FF, GG, HH,
II, JJ, and KK
Sustained (but may be used to refresh witness
recollection if necessary).
LL, MM, NN, and OO
QQ thru VV
YY and ZZ
Sustained, except as to first page identified as
“Sullivan 00074," which page is admitted
All exhibits as to which objections have been overruled are ADMITTED, and all
exhibits which have been withdrawn or as to which objections have been sustained are
NOT ADMITTED. Note that where a response to a hearsay objection represents that
the document is not offered for the truth of its contents, if the court overruled the
objection, the document is not admitted for the truth of its contents. Note, too, that there
were instances in which the court concluded that if a document were not offered for its
truth, it would be irrelevant or too attenuated from a non-hearsay purpose and/or too
cumulative of other evidence to be admitted.
III. RULINGS ON DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
A. Plaintiffs’ Deposition Designations
All of the objections to the various portions of Kevin Sullivan’s deposition are
overruled. All of the designated portions may be used at trial.
The objections to pages 25 thru 27 of Rene Esparza’s deposition are sustained,
and those pages may not be used at trial.
All of the objections to Gregory Ward’s deposition are overruled. All of the
designated portions may be used at trial.
B. Defendants’ Deposition Designations
Plaintiffs’ general objection (“plaintiffs’ generally object”) is overruled. Such a
statement is insufficiently specific to be considered.
The objection to page 6 of Gregory Ward’s deposition is overruled. All of the
plaintiffs’ suggested additions for context and completeness are accepted. Thus, all
portions of the deposition designated by defendants’ and the few pages whose addition
is requested by plaintiffs may be used at trial.
The objections to Rene Esparza’s deposition testimony are all overruled. The
designated portions may be used at trial. In addition, the suggested addition of
testimony from page 17 through page 18 at line 16 is accepted and shall be included.
The objections to the designations from the Kent Sullivan deposition are all
overruled. Frankly, the court agrees that many of the objections as to the form of the
questions posed were technically correct in that the questions were leading questions.
After reviewing the transcript, the court concludes that the objectionable questions were
summarizing what the witness had earlier said or what was stated in a document, or
Sullivan’s response was sufficiently specific to show his answer was based on his own
knowledge rather than a suggestion in the question. The court agrees with plaintiffs that
the deposition designations should be expanded to include the testimony from page 15
through page 16, line 6. With that addition, all designated testimony from Sullivan’s
deposition may be used at trial.
With respect to Paige Dourian’s deposition, the court agrees with plaintiffs that
page 392 should be included. While page 259 contains no testimony, it does make
clear that the deposition proceeded on a second day. Thus, with the addition of page
392, all designated portions of Paige Dourian’s deposition may be used at trial.
DATED this 10th day of April 2013.
/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?