Sipes v. Allstate Indemnity Company

Filing 198

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' OBJECTIONS TO DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/30/13. (mnfsl, ) Modified on 10/30/2013 to correct judge (mnfsl, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02369-PAB-KMT
LARRY SIPES,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ OBJECTIONS TO
DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter comes before the court on defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Initial
Designations of Deposition Testimony of Lori Kidwell [Docket No. 190] and plaintiff’s
Objections to Defendant’s Counter Designation of Deposition Testimony of Lori Kidwell
[Docket No. 192].
The Court rules as follows on defendant’s objections [Docket No. 190]:
Item #

Testimony

Objection

Ruling

1

29:21-30:11

Form; vague

Overruled.

2

44:9-45:4

Form; misleading;
mischaracterizes
applicable standards
regarding Allstate’s
purported duty to
“establish” that the fire
was incendiary

Overruled.

3

45:16-47:16

Refers to an exhibit that
is not on plaintiff’s
Exhibit List; lack of
relevance

Overruled.

Item #

Testimony

Objection

Ruling

4

56:1-9

Form; calls for
speculation

Overruled.

5

56:22-57:4

Form; calls for legal
conclusion; vague

Overruled.

6

57:9-17

Form; assumes facts
not in evidence; lack of
foundation; lack of
relevance

Overruled. Fed. R. Civ. P.
32(d)(3)(B)(ii).

7

63:9-64:7

Lack of foundation; lack
of relevance; hearsay;
improper impeachment

Overruled. As to 63:9-64:3,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B)(ii).
As to 63:9-64:7 (and 64:9),
the witness has foundation
and the questions are
relevant.

8

66:14-20

Form; mischaracterizes
the evidence

Overruled.

9

70:14-22

Form; misleading;
mischaracterizes
applicable standards
regarding Allstate’s
purported duty to
“establish” that the fire
was incendiary or
caused by plaintiff

Overruled.

10

71:16-72:1

Form; calls for
speculation; asked and
answered

Objection is moot. Plaintiff
has withdrawn the
designation for 71:6-71:2.

11

74:19-24

No answer designated;
question rephrased and
withdrawn; vague

Objection is moot. Plaintiff
has withdrawn the
designation of this testimony.

12

75:20-78-20

Lack of foundation;
assumes facts not in
evidence as to Allstate’s
purported standards,
mischaracterizes prior
transcript

Overruled.

2

Item #

Testimony

Objection

Ruling

13

85:8-10

No question designated;
vague

Overruled.

14

86:23-87:17

Form; vague

Overruled.

15

88:12-20

Form; vague

Overruled.

16

89:17-25

Asked; answered

Overruled.

17

101:9-18

Asked; answered

Overruled.

18

105:14-22

Inadmissible based on
court order (polygraph
evidence)

Sustained.

19

115:15-24

Question withdrawn;
vague

Moot. Plaintiff withdraws the
designation.

20

117:5-9

Form; vague; lack of
relevance

Moot. Plaintiff withdraws the
designation of 117:5-11.

21

117:15-118:22

Lack of foundation; calls
for speculation; F.R.E.
403

Overruled as to 117:15-22.
Sustained as to 117:23118:22; lack of foundation;
speculation.

22

118:23-120:13

Lack of relevance;
F.R.E. 403

Sustained.

23

122:24-123:9

Lack of relevance;
F.R.E. 403 and 408

Sustained.

The Court rules as follows on plaintiff’s objections [Docket No. 192]:
Item #

Testimony

Objection

Ruling

1

121:18-20

Leading; F.R.E. 611(c)

Overruled.

3

Item #

Testimony

Objection

Ruling

2

121:24-122:2

Leading, F.R.E. 611(c);
opinion testimony that is
not helpful, the jury can
readily draw the
necessary inferences
and conclusions as to
the reasonableness of
Allstate’s conduct
without Ms. Kidwell’s
personal opinion, F.R.E.
701; the opinion is
misleading as it is a selfserving statement by
Ms. Kidwell concerning
her conduct, F.R.E. 403

Overruled.

DATED October 30, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

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

4