Wright v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Filing 249

ORDER denying 217 Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Designations. By Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 10/30/2009.(sah, )

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 On October 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed his objections to Defendant's counter-designations of deposition testimony. Included in that document were additional deposition designations that Plaintiff contends were provided for completeness and context in light of Defendant's counter-designations. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's

supplemental designations, arguing that the Court's prior order setting forth the schedule for deposition designations did not provide for such supplementation. Rule 32(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]f a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may require the offeror to introduce other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part introduced." Because Plaintiff's supplemental designations are all part of a prior or subsequent portion designated by Defendant, the Court finds that they are proper. In light of this Order, Defendant may designate additional portions of those designations supplemented by Plaintiff for completeness and context. In addressing Plaintiff's supplemental designations, the Court has

not considered whether they may be affected by any prior rulings regarding the admissibility of deposition testimony. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Designations (Dkt. No. 217) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2009.

2