Campbell v. Feld Entertainment, Inc et al
Filing
333
ORDER RULING ON DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/12/2015. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
SHANNON CAMPBELL,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and
MICHAEL STUART,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
MARK ENNIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and
MICHAEL STUART,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK
13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RULING ON DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
22
23
24
25
Defendants have filed objections to Plaintiffs’ deposition designations for David Bailey
(“Bailey”). ECF No. 331. Plaintiffs have opposed. ECF No. 332.
After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the
26
considerations set forth in Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court rules on
27
Defendants’ objections as follows:
28
1
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
1
2
3
4
5
Defendants’ Objections
Bailey Deposition at 43:1-14
Bailey Deposition at 52:10-53:25
Bailey Deposition at 54:9-18
Bailey Deposition at 82:1-84:4
Bailey Deposition at 107:18-108:13
Ruling
Sustained.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Overruled.
Sustained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated: February 12, 2015
_______________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
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?