London Luxury LLC v. Walmart Inc.

Filing 419

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 383 Joint Motion on Objections to Lew Ann Brown Deposition Designations 383 . Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on March 24, 2024. (Brooks, Timothy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
LONDON LUXURY, LLC
V.

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT
CASE NO. 5:22-CV-5059

WALMART, INC.

DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
ORDER

Before the Court are the parties’ objections to certain excerpts of the deposition
testimony of Lew Ann Brown. Ms. Brown is a former employee of London Luxury who
was employed there for approximately six years. During 2020 and 2021, Ms. Brown was
an Account Manager for London Luxury, and her responsibilities included being a liaison
between London Luxury and the retailers she worked with, including Walmart.
The parties identified certain excerpts, or “Excerpt Designation Numbers,” from
Ms. Brown’s videotaped deposition to be presented to the jury in lieu of live testimony.
Each party then noted its respective objections and responses to one another’s
designations. Below is a chart stating the Court’s rulings on each objection. The Joint
Motion to Exclude Deposition Testimony of Lew Ann Brown (Doc. 383) is therefore
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:1

In many instances, the parties have objected to a question and answer in the context of
showing the witness an exhibit. The Court does not know whether a given exhibit will be
in evidence when the proposed deposition testimony is presented to the jury. It is possible
that the Court’s rulings here might be different based on whether the exhibit at issue is or
is not in evidence.

1

1

LEW ANN BROWN
Excerpt Objecting From
No.
Party
9
Walmart
19:9

To

Basis

20:07

19:21 to 20:3 –
Reputation or Opinion
Evidence (FRE 608(a));
Relevance (FRE 401
and 402)

20

Walmart

34:15

34:17

Reputation or Opinion
Evidence (FRE 608(a));
Relevance (FRE 401
and 401)

27

London
Luxury

42:10

42:18

Vague (42:12-42:18)
OVERRULED
Lacks foundation (42:1242:18)
FRE 403 (42:12-42:18)

47

London
Luxury

56:19

57:7

Vague (56:23-57:03)
OVERRULED as
Lacks foundation (56:23- to 56:19–56:22;
57:03)
SUSTAINED as
FRE 403 (56:23-57:03)
to 56:23–57:07
(FRE 602)

48

London
Luxury

57:18

58:2

Vague
Lacks foundation
FRE 403

52

London
Luxury

61:13

61:22

Vague (61:19-61:22)
SUSTAINED
Lacks foundation (61:19- (FRE 602)
61:22)
FRE 403 (61:19-61:22)

53

London
Luxury

61:24

62:2

Vague
Lacks foundation
FRE 403

2

Court’s Ruling
on the Objection
OVERRULED

OVERRULED

SUSTAINED
(FRE 602)

SUSTAINED
(FRE 602)

54

London
Luxury

62:9

62:16

Vague
Lacks foundation
FRE 403

SUSTAINED
(FRE 602)

55

London
Luxury

62:23

63:5

Vague
Lacks foundation
FRE 403

SUSTAINED
(FRE 602)

61

London
Luxury

66:2

68:11

Vague (66:08-66:16;
68:03-68:11)
Lacks foundation (66:0866:16; 68:03-68:11)
FRE 403 (66:08-66:16;
68:03-68:11)

OVERRULED as
to 66:02–66:07;
SUSTAINED as
to 66:08–66:16
(FRE 602);
OVERRULED as
to 66:19–68:02;
SUSTAINED as
to 68:03–68:11
(FRE 602)

63

London
Luxury

69:4

69:8

Vague
Lacks foundation

SUSTAINED
(FRE 602)

65

London
Luxury

71:3

71:17

Vague (71:03-71:13)
FRE 403 (71:03-71:13)

OVERRULED

76

London
Luxury

84:5

86:13

Vague (84:05-84:09)
OVERRULED
Lacks foundation (84:0584:09)
Argumentative (84:0584:09)
FRE 403 (84:05-84:09)

81

London
Luxury

91:20

92:12

Vague (92:03-92:12)
OVERRULED
Lacks foundation (92:0392:12)
FRE 403 (92:03-92:12)

3

92:19

Vague FRE 403

OVERRULED

82

London
Luxury

92:16

97

London
Luxury

111:03 111:14 Lacks foundation
(111:07-111:14) Calls for
speculation (111:07111:14) FRE 403
(111:07-111:14)

SUSTAINED as
to 111:04–111:06
(FRE 602);

OVERRULED

OVERRULED as
to 111:07–111:14

98

London
Luxury

112:11 112:22 FRE 403

114

London
Luxury

136:20 139:24 Lacks foundation
OVERRULED
(138:13-138:22) Calls for
speculation (138:13138:22)

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 24th day of March, 2024.

_______________________________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4