Wright v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Filing 239

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 205 Defendant's Motion for Order to Preclude Deposition Testimony Endorsed by Plaintiff, by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 10/29/09.(gmssl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO JAMES WRIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE ) CO., ) ) Defendant. ) Case Number 06-cv-351-RJC-KLM ORDER Defendant filed a motion to exclude certain portions of the deposition testimony endorsed by Plaintiff. The Court finds as follows: (A) Deposition Testimony of Dr. Richard Murphy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (B) (32:2-33:14) - Objection overruled. (34:15-22) - Objection overruled. (43:6-15) - Objection overruled. (50:2-52:23) - Objection overruled (53:4-12) - Objection overruled (68:15-69:7) - No response from Plaintiff, so the objection is sustained. (71:10-72:23) - Objection overruled. (166:8-168:3) - Objection overruled. (168:12-169:18) - Objection overruled. (170:17-171:6) - Objection sustained. Deposition Testimony of Carla O'Hara (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (C) (31:16-18) - Objection overruled. (33:7-12 and 23) - Objection overruled. (52:17-53:2) - Objection sustained. (60:21-23; 61:1) - Objection sustained. (77:2-20) - Objection overruled. (77:21-78:19) - Objection overruled Deposition Testimony of Linda Cunningham (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (19:16-21:21) - Objection overruled. (26:18-27:5; 28:2-29:24) - Objection overruled. (44:1-53:14) - Objection overruled. (54:23-56:12) - Objection overruled. (57:21-58:19) - The evidence is cumulative, so the objection is sustained. (6) (59:1-60:22) - Objection overruled. (D) Deposition Testimony of Sherry Martin (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (49:21-50:2) - Objection sustained. (84:5-17) - Objection overruled. (111:7-10) - Objection sustained. (137:16-21) - Objection sustained. (161:25-162:5) - Objection overruled. (188:4-14) - Objection overruled. 2 (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (E) (191:2-10) - Objection overruled. (192:21-193:8) - Objection overruled. (213:24-214:11) - Objection sustained. (216:6-8) - Objection sustained. (217:17-218:9) - Objection sustained. (221:22-222:21) - Objection overruled. (249:19-250:25) - Objection sustained. (258:23-261:17) - Objection overruled. (273:3-11) - The evidence is cumulative, so the objection is sustained. (276:13-18) - Objection sustained. (294:5-6) - Objection overruled. Deposition Testimony of Randall Moody (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (24:6-22) - Objection overruled. (26:4-21) - Objection overruled. (28:18-29:2) - Objection overruled. (41:17-42:25) - Objection overruled. (44:16-47:9) - Objection overruled. (63:1-4) - Objection overruled. (84:12-92:11) - Objection overruled. (92:12-94:12) - Objection overruled. 3 (9) (94:13-17) - Plaintiff confesses this objection, and agrees to remove this portion of the deposition testimony. (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (104:19-105:15) - Objection overruled. (131:15-132:9) - Objection overruled. (140:25-141:13) - Objection overruled. (151:20-152:2) - Objection overruled. (160:17-166:2) - Objection overruled. (168:19-170:21) - Objection sustained. (171:7-174:22) - Objection sustained. (177:20-180:9) - Objection overruled. (185:8-186:17) - Objection overruled. (186:18-187:20) - Objection overruled. (189:22-190:4) - Objection sustained. (192:15-196:21) - Objection sustained. (200:25-227:16) - Objection sustained. (227:23-230:14) - Objection overruled. (230:15-231:1) - Plaintiff confesses this objection, and agrees to remove this portion of the deposition testimony. (25) (26) (27) (231:2-232:5) - Objection sustained. (236:2-238:3) - Objection sustained. (243:7-11) - Objection overruled. 4 (28) (246:12-251:13) - Objection sustained. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Preclude Deposition Testimony Endorsed by Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 205) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2009. 5

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?