James v. Terex Corporation

Filing 148

ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART and OVERRULING IN PART the objections raised in the Joint Deposition Designations for witnesses Barry De Lau, 111 , Thomas Feichtinger, 112 , and Matthew Sanders, 115 . Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 12/6/19. (jrb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS DIVISION

ROW EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:16-cv-60

v.
TEREX USA, LLC d/b/a TEREX
ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT,
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff ROW Equipment, Inc. and Defendant Terex USA, LLC filed nine Joint Deposition
Designations on October 11, 2019. (Docs. 109–117.) Each filing contains the parties’ respective
designations as well as any objections by the opposing party. (See Docs. 111, 112, 115.)
Additionally, Defendant submitted a brief further detailing the bases for each of their objections.
(Doc. 118.) Upon consideration and as set forth below, the Court OVERRULES IN PART and
SUSTAINS IN PART the objections raised in the Joint Deposition Designations for witnesses
Barry De Lau, (doc. 111), Thomas Feichtinger, (doc. 112), and Matthew Sanders, (doc. 115).
I.

Deposition of Barry De Lau (Doc. 111)
A)

Plaintiff’s Objection to Page 21, lines 16 through 24

This objection is OVERRULED.
II.

Deposition of Thomas Feichtinger (Doc. 112)
A)

Defendant’s Objection to Page 5, line 24 through Page 7, line 17

This objection is SUSTAINED as to page 5, line 24 through page 7, line 11, for lack of
relevancy in addition to the reasons stated by Defendant. (See doc. 118, p. 5.) However,

Defendant’s objection is OVERRULED as to the remaining portion of the designated testimony,
page 7, lines 12 through 17.
B)

Plaintiff’s Objection to Page 27, line 12 through Page 28, line 8

This objection is OVERRULED.
III.

Deposition of Matthew Sanders (Doc. 115)
A)

Defendant’s Objection to Page 9, line 24 through Page 10, line 6

This objection is OVERRULED.
B)

Plaintiff’s Objection to Page 11, lines 17 through 18

This objection is OVERRULED.
C)

Defendant’s Objection to Page 16, lines 8 through 15

This objection is OVERRULED.
D)

Plaintiff’s Objection to Page 17, lines 8 through 10

This objection is OVERRULED.
E)

Defendant’s Objection to Page 18, lines 4 through 9

This objection is OVERRULED.
F)

Defendant’s Objection to Page 22, lines 14 through 18

This objection is OVERRULED.
G)

Plaintiff’s Objection to Page 30, lines 20 through 23

This objection is SUSTAINED.
H)

Plaintiff’s objection to Page 32, lines 11 through 20

This objection is SUSTAINED.

2

CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART and OVERRULES IN
PART the objections raised in the Joint Deposition Designations for witnesses Barry De Lau, (doc.
111), Thomas Feichtinger, (doc. 112), and Matthew Sanders, (doc. 115).
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of December, 2019.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3