SILVER et al v. BAD BOY ENTERPRISES LLC et al

Filing 172

ORDER re Objections to Deposition Designations 116 , 117 , 142 , and 145 . Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 09/16/2013. (CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
MARK SILVER and LAURA SILVER,
Individually and as Next
Friends and Parents of Leslie
Erin Silver, a minor child,

*
*
*

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 4:12-CV-5 (CDL)
*

vs.
*
BAD BOY ENTERPRISES LLC, BB
BUGGIES INC., and TEXTRON INC., *
Defendants.

*
O R D E R

Notwithstanding the Court’s encouragement, attorneys for
the

parties

have

made

little

progress

narrowing

down

deposition objections in preparation for the trial of this
case.

Therefore, the Court is faced with reviewing dozens of

depositions

and

ruling

on

generic

objections

“vague” to “leading” to “compound.”
waste of judicial resources.
litigation

where

presentations”
primarily

for

discovery

from

Such an exercise is a

It also is a symptom of modern

litigators

through

ranging

prefer

depositions
and

not

for

to

that

provide
should

trial

and

“canned
be

taken

where

many

litigators waste very few opportunities to make an objection
in

the

trial.

deposition

setting

that

they

would

never

raise

at

Balancing the right of the parties to use depositions

under those circumstances permitted by the Federal Rules with
the Court’s interest in making rulings in the context of the
trial and in the most efficient manner, the Court will not
rule on deposition objections in advance of trial.

Instead,

the objections shall be made by counsel live at trial when the
question is read or played at trial, and the Court will make
its

ruling

from

the

bench

testifying live at trial.

just

as

if

the

witness

was

If the objection is not made live

at trial, it will be waived.

The Court continues to encourage

the parties to minimize the number of depositions that will be
presented at trial; and for those that must be presented, the
Court implores the parties to reconsider those objections that
lack

merit

so

that

time

is

not

wasted

at

trial

on

such

objections.
The

Court

observes

that

almost

all

of

Plaintiffs’

objections to BBE’s designations are based on an incomplete
designation.

Though this issue certainly should have been

simple for the parties to resolve, they did not work out the
issue

on

their

own.

Plaintiffs’

incompleteness are sustained.

objections

based

on

The Court declines to waste its

time going through each designation one by one to figure out
what

additional

designated.

portions

Rather,

the

of

the

Court

2

depositions

orders

BBE

to

should

be

amend

its

designations to include the entire question and/or answer for
each

designation

incompleteness.

to

which

Plaintiffs

objected

based

on

BBE’s amended designations shall be provided

to Plaintiffs’ counsel within seven days of today’s Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of September, 2013.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3