Ruark v Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 91

ORDER re Docs. 73 , 74 and 79 Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures Designations and Objections filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company. See order for details. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/7/17. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANNY R. RUARK,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:14-329-DRH-RJD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
In an effort to save time during trial, the parties are designating their
respective objections regarding the deposition testimony to be read at trial (Docs.
71-76; 78-79; 82) The Court has considered the objections submitted by the
defendant relative to the May 11, 2017 deposition of Plaintiff Danny Ruark (Doc.
73), the May 9, 2017 deposition of Dr. Brett Taylor (Doc. 74), and the deposition
of Derek Johnson (Doc. 79). The Court’s rulings on said objections are as follows:
Danny Ruark’s Deposition dated May 11, 2017
As to Danny Ruark’s May 11, 2017 Deposition, the Court’s rulings go
through the objections included in Defendant’s Designations of Video Deposition
of Danny Ruark Dated May 11, 2017 (Doc. 73, pgs. 2-3).
Page
11
12

Lines
22-25
1-25

Objections
Relevancy and materiality
Relevancy and materiality

13

1;6-24 Relevancy and materiality

Court’s Ruling
Objection overruled
Objection overruled as to lines 1–5, but
sustained as to relevance and materiality
regarding lines 6–25
Objection sustained as to relevance and
materiality regarding line 1 and lines 6-24

Page 1 of 3

17

16-25

Narrative; non-responsive;
violation of motion in
limine; hearsay

18

1-25

Narrative; non-responsive;
violation of motion in
limine; hearsay

19

1-20

Narrative; non-responsive;
violation of motion in
limine; hearsay

21

15-25

Hearsay – reasked

28

9-19

29

15-25

30

1-25

Relevancy and materiality;
hearsay
Relevancy and materiality;
hearsay
Relevancy and materiality

31

1-25

Relevancy and materiality

32

1-17

Relevancy and materiality

Objection overruled as to narrative and
violation of motion in limine, but sustained as
to hearsay starting from line 22 at “And they”
through end of page
Objection as to hearsay sustained regarding
lines 18–21 through the words “fit the drill.”
Objection sustained beginning on line 21 with
words “The drill was” to end of page as to
violation of motion in limine. Objections as to
all other lines and for other reasons,
overruled.
Objection sustained through line 10 and words
“made them happy.” as violation of the motion
in limine. Objections as to all other lines and
for other reasons, overruled.
Objection as to hearsay sustained beginning on
line 15 with words “And they” through end of
page. All other objections and lines overruled.
Objection sustained as to hearsay but not
relevance or materiality.
Objection sustained as to relevance and
materiality but not hearsay.
Objection sustained as to relevance and
materiality.
Objection sustained as to relevance and
materiality regarding lines 1-8. The Court
defers on the balance of the objection until the
Court has an opportunity to see Exhibit 1.
Generally, the Court will not disallow wage
loss evidence on the basis of relevance and
materiality unless it is during a period when
the plaintiff was incarcerated.
The Court defers on the balance of the
objection until he has an opportunity to see
Exhibit 1. Generally, the Court will not
disallow wage loss evidence on the basis of
relevance and materiality unless it is during a
period when the plaintiff was incarcerated.

Dr. Brett Taylor’s Deposition dated May 9, 2017
As to Dr. Brett Taylor’s May 9, 2017 deposition, the Court’s rulings go
through the objections included in Defendant’s Designations and Objections of
Video Deposition of Dr. Brett Taylor Dated May 9, 2017 (Doc. 74, pg. 2).

Page 2 of 3

Defendant’s objections based on non-disclosed expert witness and hearsay
are overruled as per the Court’s in court ruling on May 31, 2017.
Defendant’s objections as to pages 19 and 20 for no foundation and no
evidence to support are overruled as well, lacking a basis for said objections.
Also, the language during the deposition from plaintiff’s lawyer that he is
tendering the witness as an expert witness should be removed since the Court will
not endorse the witness as an expert witness in the presence of the jury, and the
jury will be instructed regarding how they should regard witnesses who give
opinion testimony.
Derek Johnson’s Deposition
As to Derek Johnson’s deposition, the Court’s ruling addresses the
objections included in Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Designations Video
Evidence Deposition of Derek Johnson (Doc. 79). Defendant objects to the
designations that concern attorneys speaking to one another during the
deposition, or objections that were withdrawn by defendant. Defendant’s
objections to the designations contained in Doc. 79 are sustained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 7th day of June, 2017.

Digitally signed
by Judge David
R. Herndon
Date: 2017.06.07
15:32:48 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3