Giles et al v. Gravity Play Entertainment, LLC et al

Filing 126

ORDER re: 113 Defendant The Inflatable Store, Inc.'s Objections to Plaintiffs' Designation of Deposition Testimony. The Court rules on the objections as set forth in this Order, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/15/09. (ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 07-cv-00401-PAB-KLM KATHERINE GILES and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. THE INFLATABLE STORE, INC., Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY _____________________________________________________________________ This matter comes before the court on defendant The Inflatable Store, Inc.'s Objections to Plaintiffs' Designation of Deposition Testimony [Docket No. 113]. The Court rules as follows: Item # 1 Testimony Newman, Dr. James ­ 16:9-20:6 Objection Dr. Newman lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to express this opinion. Dr. Newman's opinion is not the product of reliable principles and methods and is based upon insufficient facts and data. Witness not properly disclosed, F.R.E. 702-703. Ruling Ruling reserved.

Item # 2

Testimony Newman, Dr. James ­ 20:7-22:10

Objection Dr. Newman lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to express this opinion. Dr. Newman's opinion is not the product of reliable principles and methods and is based upon insufficient facts and data. Witness not properly disclosed, F.R.E. 702-703. Dr. Newman lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to express this opinion. Dr. Newman's opinion is not the product of reliable principles and methods and is based upon insufficient facts and data. Witness not properly disclosed, F.R.E. 702-703. Dr. Newman lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to express this opinion. Dr. Newman's opinion is not the product of reliable principles and methods and is based upon insufficient facts and data. Witness not properly disclosed, F.R.E. 702-703. Dr. Newman lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to express this opinion. Dr. Newman's opinion is not the product of reliable principles and methods and is based upon insufficient facts and data. Witness not properly disclosed, F.R.E. 702-703. Dr. Newman lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to express this opinion. Dr. Newman's opinion is not the product of reliable principles and methods and is based upon insufficient facts and data. Witness not properly disclosed, F.R.E. 702-703. 2

Ruling Ruling reserved.

3

Newman, Dr. James ­ 22:11-23:13

Ruling reserved.

4

Newman, Dr. James ­ 27:17-29:7

Ruling reserved.

5

Newman, Dr. James ­ 29:8-34:21

Ruling reserved.

6

Newman, Dr. James ­ 35:9-40:7

Ruling reserved.

Item # 7

Testimony Newman, Dr. James ­ 41:16-42:9

Objection Dr. Newman lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to express this opinion. Dr. Newman's opinion is not the product of reliable principles and methods and is based upon insufficient facts and data. Witness not properly disclosed, F.R.E. 702-703. Dr. Newman lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to express this opinion. Dr. Newman's opinion is not the product of reliable principles and methods and is based upon insufficient facts and data. Witness not properly disclosed, F.R.E. 702-703. Exhibit 48 is Dr. Lam's report. Refers to his report. Opinions are compound to his deposition and/or live testimony and should be precluded. Exhibit 48 is Dr. Lam's report. Refers to his report. Opinions are compound to his deposition and/or live testimony and should be precluded. Exhibit 48 is Dr. Lam's report. Refers to his report. Opinions are compound to his deposition and/or live testimony and should be precluded. Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402

Ruling Ruling reserved.

8

Newman, Dr. James ­ 42:20-43:11

Ruling reserved.

9

Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 7:5-12:2

Ruling reserved.

10

Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 36:6-25

Ruling reserved.

11

Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 38:6-11

Ruling reserved.

12 13 14 15

Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 4:5-23 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 10:2-11:2 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 14:8-15:3 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 47:4-48:24

Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved.

3

Item # 16 17 18

Testimony Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 54:14-18 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 61:19-62:11 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 63:22-64:9 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 71:4-12 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 75:1-76:12 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 88:9-90:3 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 90:22-92:22 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 93:12-19 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 94:17-95:3 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 95:15-20 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 147:18-148:1 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 158:3-10 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 161:15-162:8 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 171:5-12 Lam, Dr. Tack ­ 191:4-10

Objection Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; Prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value, F.R.E. 403 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; Prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value, F.R.E. 403 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; lack of personal knowledge F.R.E. 602 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; lack of personal knowledge F.R.E. 602 Lack of personal knowledge F.R.E. 602 Lack of personal knowledge F.R.E. 602 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; lack of personal knowledge F.R.E. 602 Lack of personal knowledge F.R.E. 602 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; Prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value, F.R.E. 403 Lack of personal knowledge F.R.E. 602 4

Ruling Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved.

19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

Item # 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Testimony Anastasia, Mark ­ 12:18-13:23 Anastasia, Mark ­ 22:3-22 Anastasia, Mark ­ 29:9-19 Anastasia, Mark ­ 30:4-33:5 Anastasia, Mark ­ 118:24-119:25 Anastasia, Mark ­ 127:25-128:8 Anastasia, Mark ­ 129:1-7 Anastasia, Mark ­ 131:20-134:2 Anastasia, Mark ­ 147:12-22 Anastasia, Mark ­ 157:19-158:3 Anastasia, Mark ­ 200:5-13 Anastasia, Mark ­ 201:20-203:2 Anastasia, Mark ­ 209:19-210:16 Anastasia, Mark ­ 215:12-216:5 Anastasia, Mark ­ 221:23-222:11

Objection Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Vague; overbroad, lack of foundation and no definition of "design" given. Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; lack of personal knowledge F.R.E. 602 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; lack of personal knowledge and F.R.E. 602; inadmissible lay opinion, F.R.E. 701 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; lack of personal knowledge and F.R.E. 602; inadmissible lay opinion, F.R.E. 701 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Vague; overbroad, lack of foundation ­ no definition of "testing" given. Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402; Lack of personal knowledge, F.R.E. 602; inadmissible lay opinion, F.R.E. 701 Lack of personal knowledge, F.R.E. 602 5

Ruling Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved. Ruling reserved.

40

41 42 43 44

45

Item # 46 47 48 49

Testimony Douglas French ­ 11:8-15 Douglas French ­ 16:15-24 Douglas French ­ 70:17-72:20 Douglas French ­ 73:8-12 Clark, Matthew P. ­ 69:23-70:6

Objection Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Hearsay, F.R.E. 801, Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Hearsay, F.R.E. 801, Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Irrelevant, F.R.E. 401-402 Hearsay, F.R.E. 801

Ruling Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Sustained Overruled Overruled Overruled Sustained as to 36:17-22, 37:5-38, 25, 40:1341:4. Otherwise overruled. Sustained as to 61:1962:13. Otherwise overruled. Overruled

50 51 52 53

Lash, Steven ­ 7:22-8:15 Lash, Steven ­ 9:3-10:4 Lash, Steven ­ 10:25-12:8 Lash, Steven ­ 36:17-41:4

54

Lash, Steven ­ 60:20-62:13

Hearsay, F.R.E. 801, Inadmissible lay opinion, F.R.E. 701

55

Lash, Steven ­ 114:25-116:18

Speculation, F.R.E. 602

6

Item # 56

Testimony Keller, Samuel J. ­ 21:15-22:11

Objection Hearsay, F.R.E. 801

Ruling Sustained as to 21:15-21 and 22:911. Otherwise overruled. Overruled

57

Keller, Samuel J. ­ 62:10-22

Lack of personal knowledge, F.R.E. 602, Inadmissible lay opinion, F.R.E. 701

DATED April 15, 2009. BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge

7