Toy v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
Filing
282
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' OBJECTIONS TO DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF BRUCE PROCTOR. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/14/14. (mfiel, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01683-PAB-MJW
GREGORY TOY,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ OBJECTIONS
TO DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF BRUCE PROCTOR
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant
American Family Mutual Insurance Company’s Counter Designations [Docket No. 182-1
at 3-4] and American Family’s Objections and Counter Designations [Docket No. 171 at
8-12] as to Bruce Proctor.
The Court rules as follows on plaintiff’s objections:
Item Testimony
#
1
7:18 – 8:2
2.
13:23 – 14:24
3.
53:23 – 54:5
Plaintiff’s Objections
No objection
F.R.E. 602; testimony calls for speculation;
not required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6)
Answer is nonresponsive; F.R.E. 403; not
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6)
Ruling
Sustained. Rule
32(a)(6).
Sustained. Rule
32(a)(6).
4.
63:15 – 63:19
F.R.E. 403; 404(b) and will “open the door” to
Defendant’s other acts contradicting claimed
“history of paying claims and having excellent
claims service,” including numerous lawsuits
alleging bad faith; not required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 32(a)(6)
5.
6.
66:21 – 66:23
76:20 – 77:2
7.
8.
9.
82:12 – 82:17
85:17 – 86:23
96:21 – 97:15
10.
11.
12.
13.
106:9 – 106:14
111:1 – 111:6
112:1 – 112:13
115:2 – 116:8
14.
15.
16.
141:20 –
142:21 – 143:2
151:2 – 151:12
17.
163:15 –
163:21
18.
170:10 – 171:2
No objection
Answer is nonresponsive; F.R.E. 403; not
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6)
No objection
Not required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6)
Answer is nonresponsive; F.R.E. 403; not
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6)
No objection
No objection
No objection
F.R.E. 403; not required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
32(a)(6)
No objection
No objection
F.R.E. 403; not required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
32(a)(6)
F.R.E. 403; not required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
32(a)(6); if this portion of the deposition is
presented, Plaintiff counter-designates
163:22 – 164:15.
F.R.E. 403; not required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
32(a)(6)
As to 63:1563:17 (through
“settlements”),
overruled. As to
63:17(beginning
with “You
know”),
sustained. Rule
32(a)(6).
Sustained. Rule
32(a)(6).
Overruled.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Sustained
Overruled.
The Court rules as follows on defendant’s objections:
Testimony
Defendant’s Objections
Ruling
16:4 – 17:6
Leading, mischaracterizes the evidence
21:11-22:22
Leading, calls for speculation
Overruled. Also,
objections waived.
Overruled. Also,
objections waived.
2
23:2 – 24:9
Leading, misleading, misstates the law,
improperly instructs the jury on the law, does
not specify relevant timeframe
Overruled. Also,
form objections
waived.
24:8 – 24:11
Leading, misleading, misstates the law,
improperly instructs the jury on the law, does
not specify relevant timeframe
Overruled.
24:17 – 25:14
Leading, misleading, misstates the law,
improperly instructs the jury on the law, does
not specify relevant timeframe
Overruled. Also,
form objections
waived.
26:1 – 28:7
Leading, misleading, misstates the law,
improperly instructs the jury on the law, does
not specify relevant timeframe
Overruled. Also,
form objections
waived.
28:5 – 28:15
Leading, calls for speculation
Overruled.
28:16 – 28:20
Leading, calls for speculation
Overruled.
33:22 – 34:12
Relevance, “fairness” is not the relevant legal
standard
46:20 – 47:7
Relevance
As to 33:22-34:04,
overruled. As to
34:05-34:12,
sustained. Vague.
Overruled.
48:5 – 49:15
Relevance, the question contains hearsay
Overruled.
49:19 – 50:22
Overruled.
61:24 – 62:9
Relevance, lack of foundation, the question
contains hearsay
Relevance, calls for speculation
62:11 – 62:17
Relevance
Overruled.
63:1 – 63:14
Relevance, outside the scope of the notice,
does not specify the relevant timeframe
Overruled.
63:22-64:23
Relevance
Overruled.
67:5-8
Leading, misstates previous testimony
68:2 – 68:19
Relevance, the question contains hearsay
Overruled. Also,
form objection
waived.
Overruled.
3
Overruled.
Case 1:12-cv-01683-PAB-MJW Document 171 Filed 01/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 17
70:12 – 72:1
Leading
73:14 – 75:12
Relevance, the question contains hearsay
81:15-83
Relevance, does not specify the relevant
timeframe
Assumes facts not in evidence, leading
79:7-16
84:18 – 85:5
95:23 – 96:5
Relevance, not limited to the relevant
timeframe
Relevance, not limited to the relevant
timeframe
The question contains hearsay
97:16 – 99:2
The question contains hearsay, leading
99:3 – 101:2
The question contains hearsay
87:11 – 92:6
Overruled. Also,
form objection
waived.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Overruled. Also,
form objection
waived.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Overruled. Also,
form objection
waived.
Overruled.
101:3 – 102:21 Leading, assumes facts not in evidence, the
question contains hearsay, calls for
speculation
Overruled. Also,
form objections
waived.
102:23 – 104:2 Leading, calls for speculation
Overruled.
Objections waived.
Overruled.
109:4 – 110:25 Leading, the question contains hearsay
113:5 – 113:17 The question contains hearsay, misleading
in that only part of the statement is read
Overruled.
114:3 -6
The question contains hearsay, leading
114:7-10
Calls for speculation
Overruled. Also,
form objection
waived.
Sustained.
116:12 –
125:14
Leading, the question contains hearsay, calls Overruled. Also,
for speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, form objections
assumes facts not in evidence, calls for a legal waived.
conclusion
4
Case 1:12-cv-01683-PAB-MJW Document 171 Filed 01/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 17
128:9 -131:1
Leading, calls for speculation
Overruled. Also,
form objections
waived.
Overruled, except as
to 132:20-22, which
is sustained as
irrelevant. Also,
form objections
waived.
Overruled.
131:12 –
136:11
Leading, asked and answered, relevance,
argumentative
137:18 –
137:25
Leading, mischaracterizes the evidence,
assumes facts not in evidence, asked and
answered
138:16 –
141:19
Calls for a legal conclusion, lack of
foundation, harassing, asked and answered
Overruled. Also,
form objections
waived.
144:5 – 145:5
Argumentative, relevance (Mr. Toy did not
purchase the policy), assumes facts not in
evidence
145:8 – 147:7
Leading, the question contains hearsay
Overruled, except
as to 144:12144:19, which is
sustained as
irrelevant and
misleading.
Overruled.
147:18 – 148:5 Leading, calls for speculation,
Overruled.
mischaracterizes the evidence (Mr. Toy was
represented by a licensed attorney)
148:6 – 194:4 Calls for speculation, calls for a legal
[sic]
conclusion, relevance
149:14 - 150:12 Leading, calls for speculations, calls for a
legal conclusion, relevance
Overruled.
150:13 – 151:1 Leading, calls for speculation, calls for a
legal conclusion, relevance
Overruled.
151:13-152:8
Overruled.
Leading, calls for speculation, calls for a
legal conclusion, relevance
5
Overruled.
Case 1:12-cv-01683-PAB-MJW Document 171 Filed 01/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 17
153:15 – 154:9 Leading, the question contains hearsay
Overruled.
157:2 – 157:22 Leading, the question contains hearsay
Overruled.
160:8 -24
Calls for speculation, misstates the evidence, Overruled.
Mr. Toy was represented by an attorney who
was corresponding with American Family
160:25 – 161:5 Calls for speculation
Overruled.
161:9 – 163:7
Calls for speculation, leading, asked and
answered, assumes facts not in evidence,
the question contains hearsay
Overruled. Also,
form objections
waived.
166:5-166:8
The question is a violation of the Court’s Overruled.
previous orders, relevance
167:2-19
The question is a violation of the Court’s Overruled.
previous orders, relevance, calls for
speculation
172:14 – 174:4 Leading
Overruled. Objection
waived.
Overruled.
174:10 –
175:13
176:8-25
Calls for a legal conclusion, relevance,
leading
Misstates evidence, it was not Mr. Toy’s
policy, asked and answered
177:2-21
Calls for a legal conclusion, relevance
Overruled.
180:20 – 12
Leading
181:22 -182:8
Leading, assumes facts not in evidence,
Designation is
incomplete and
nonsensical.
Overruled.
Overruled.
6
Overruled.
Case 1:12-cv-01683-PAB-MJW Document 171 Filed 01/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 17
DATED February 14, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
7
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?