Willis et al v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. et al

Filing 351

ORDER Overruling Defendant Foster Wheeler's and Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections. Defendant's objections are Overruled without prejudice. Plaintiff's objections are Overruled and motion to strike Denied as moot. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/18/2014.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DONALD WILLIS AND VIOLA WILLIS 10 11 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO PUMPS INC., et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 12cv744 BTM (DHB) ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT FOSTER WHEELER’S AND PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS In what can only be characterized as a shotgun approach, Defendant Foster 15 Wheeler has filed an eighty page document containing sixty-four objections to 16 Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary 17 judgment. (Doc. 280-2). Each numbered objection, in turn, contains numerous sub- 18 objections, creating a total of 495 objections. 19 20 For example, Objection No. 52 focuses on the deposition transcript of Plaintiff Donald Willis, arguing that the evidence is, among other things, irrelevant, hearsay, 1 1 lacks foundation, lacks authentication, more prejudicial than probative, vague, 2 ambiguous, and overbroad. Not wanting to miss anything, Defendant also objects that 3 Plaintiffs have not shown that Mr. Willis is unavailable to testify. The Court is 4 confident that Mr. Willis is unavailable; he is deceased.1 While federal subpoena 5 power is broad, Mr. Willis is now beyond this Court’s jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the 6 vast majority of the other 494 objections are equally meritless. Nonetheless, the Court will briefly address a few of Defendant’s arguments. 7 8 Defendant’s first objection, labeled their “general objections,” raise two issues. First, 9 Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ combined brief and separate statement of facts 10 exceed the thirty-five-page limit imposed by the Court. Second, Defendant argues 11 that several of the exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ separate statement are not 12 referenced anywhere in the opposition or separate statement, and thus are misleading, 13 irrelevant, and more prejudicial than probative. The Court notes Plaintiffs’ evasion of the page limitation and the Court’s order 14 15 to comply, and also Plaintiffs’ attachment of uncited and seemingly irrelevant 16 exhibits, but Plaintiffs’ violations are technical and Defendant has not been 17 substantially prejudiced as a result. Accordingly, Defendant’s general objection is 18 overruled. However, any further violations of page limitations will result in the 19 1 20 This fact can hardly come as a surprise to Defendant. Plaintiffs filed a notice of death with all parties on May 7, 2013. (Doc. 209). Defendant Foster Wheeler filed its own confirmation of the death. (Doc. 210). The instant objections were filed over seven months later, on December 13, 2013. (Doc. 280-2). 2 1 2 offending papers being struck. Defendant also objects to a number of exhibits on the basis that they are 3 inadmissible in their current form. For example, in Objection No. 41, Defendant 4 objects to the deposition transcript of Martin Kraft, arguing that it is inadmissible as 5 former testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) because “Plaintiffs have 6 made no showing that the deponent . . . is legally or factually ‘unavailable.’” 7 However, when resolving a motion for summary judgment, the question of 8 admissibility is one of content, not form. See Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 9 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2003) (“At the summary judgment stage, we do not focus on the 10 admissibility of the evidence's form. We instead focus on the admissibility of its 11 contents.”). At trial, Plaintiffs may be able to admit into evidence the content of Mr. 12 Kraft’s deposition transcript by calling him to testify, or by establishing the elements 13 for the former testimony exception. Accordingly, the content of the evidence is 14 potentially admissible, even if its current form is not. 15 In conclusion, the Court finds that Defendant’s objections are meritless and 16 premature at this stage. Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED without prejudice. 17 At trial, Defendant will be able to renew their objections if Plaintiffs fail to present 18 their evidence in admissible form. 19 20 The Court also notes that Plaintiffs filed evidentiary objections to Defendant’s expert declarations in support of the government contractor defense and moved to 3 1 strike portions of the same declarations. (Doc. 272-49). However, because the Court 2 is denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on that issue, Plaintiff’s 3 objections are OVERRULED and motion to strike DENIED as moot. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: July 18, 2014 7 ______________________________________ BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 4

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?