WATERS EDGE LIVING LLC et al v. RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY et al

Filing 519

ORDER denying 516 motion to exclude video deposition. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/23/10. (RH)

Download PDF
Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION WATERS EDGE LIVING, LLC, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY, etc., et al., Defendants. _____________________________________/ ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE VIDEO DEPOSITION The plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking to exclude the publication of a video deposition. If I understand the motion correctly, the defendant properly designated the portions of the deposition it seeks to introduce, but it did not specifically indicate that the testimony would be published by playing the video, rather than by reading the testimony. And the defendant did not list the video as an exhibit. Deposition testimony is not properly introduced as an exhibit. Instead, the testimony is published, either by reading it or, if it was recorded visually, by showing the jury the video. This puts the testimony on the same footing--so far as CASE NO. 4:06cv334-RH/WCS Page 2 of 2 possible--with live testimony. Parties sometimes list a deposition transcript as an exhibit, but I do not ordinarily allow the introduction of a transcript as an exhibit. Listing a deposition as an exhibit is not a prerequisite to introducing the testimony by publishing the deposition No rule or order requires a party to indicate in advance how it will publish a deposition. If the plaintiffs' objection is simply to the manner of publication of portions of deposition testimony that were properly and timely designated, the objection is plainly unfounded. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The plaintiffs' motion (document 516) to exclude a video deposition is DENIED. SO ORDERED on May 23, 2010. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge Case No: 4:06cv334-RH/WCS

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?