Cordoba v. Pulido

Filing 300

ORDER ON THE PARTIES RESPECTIVE OBJECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR THOMAS PENINGER. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 1/22/18. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

OAKLAND DIVISION

7

WILLIAM CORDOBA,

Case No: C 12-4857 (PR)

8

Plaintiff,
9

vs.
10

ORDER ON THE PARTIES’
RESPECTIVE OBJECTIONS TO
THE DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
FOR THOMAS PENINGER

SYLVIA PULIDO,
Dkt. 228, 232, 240, 278

11

Defendant.
12
13

Plaintiff William Cordoba (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Sylvia Pulido (“Defendant”)

14

have each designated (by page and line number of the transcript) portions of the videotaped

15

deposition testimony of Thomas Peninger to play for the jury. The parties have lodged

16

objections to each other’s designations. The Court rules on the objections as follows:

17
18
19

1.

Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s designation of lines 4:21-4:25 is

SUSTAINED on the ground that it is incomplete, and line 5:1 is ADDED for completeness.
2.

Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s designation of lines 16:7-16-19 is

20

SUSTAINED on the ground that it is incomplete, and lines 16:20-17:4 are ADDED for

21

completeness.

22
23

3.

Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s designation of lines 17:15-18:6 is

OVERRULED; lines 17:13-17:14 are ADDED for completeness.1

24

4.

25

OVERRULED.

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s designation of lines 28:7-28:20 are

26
1

The Court has sua sponte added lines 17:13-17:14 on the ground that its omission
was likely inadvertent. Lines 17:13-17:14 contain the question to which designated lines
28 17:15-19 respond.
27

1

5.

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s designation of lines 30:8-32:23 are

2

SUSTAINED only as to lines 30:11-23 on the ground that the testimony is nonresponsive

3

and lacks foundation; Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED as to the remaining lines.

4

6.

Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s designation of lines 32:9-32:13 is

5

SUSTAINED on the ground that it is incomplete, and lines 32:14-32:23 are ADDED for

6

completeness.

7

7.

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s designation of lines 34:10-37:20 are

8

SUSTAINED only as to lines 35:21-36:16, 36:21-36:23 (to exclude “I was working on

9

something and they had a hard time finding me, but it was imperative that she get into that

10

room”), and lines 37:13-20 on the grounds that the testimony is speculative and

11

nonresponsive, lacks personal knowledge, and contains hearsay. The objections are

12

OVERRULED as to the remaining lines.

13

8.

14

OVERRULED.

15

9.

Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s designation of lines 34:10-35:20 is

Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s designation of lines 37:2-37:12 is

16

SUSTAINED IN PART on the ground that it is incomplete, and lines 36:17-36:21 and

17

36:23-7:1 (as described in paragraph 7 above) are ADDED for completeness.

18

10.

Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s designation of lines 40:3-41:19, 41:21-

19

41:21, 41:23-42:2, 42:7-42:20, 42:25-43:24, 44:5-45:11, 45:18-45:22, 46:9-46:21, 47:1-

20

47:7, 47:17-48:4, and 55:18-56:10 is SUSTAINED on the ground that the testimony is

21

precluded by the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion in limine no. 3. Dkt. 284.

22

11.

Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s designation of lines 62:21-63:1, 63:5-

23

63:14, 63:18-64:10, 64:14-66:16, 67:14-67:20, 69:15-70:10, and 70:12-70:21 is

24

SUSTAINED on the ground that the testimony is precluded by the Court’s order granting

25

Defendant’s motion in limine no. 5. Dkt. 284. Although Defendant failed to object to

26

Plaintiff’s designation of lines 66:18-67:1, this testimony is also excluded on the ground

27

that it contravenes the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion in limine no. 5.

28
-2-

1

12.

2

OVERRULED.

3

13.

4

OVERRULED.

5

14.

Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s designation of lines 99:18-101:11 are

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s designation of lines 107:8-107:21 are

Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s designation of lines 107:15-107:21 is

6

SUSTAINED on the ground that it is incomplete, and lines 107:8-107:14 are ADDED for

7

completeness.

8
9
10
11
12

15.

Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s designation of lines 108:10-109:10 are

SUSTAINED on the ground that the testimony is incomplete, irrelevant, prejudicial, and
constitutes improper character evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2018

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Senior United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-