SAMS HOTEL GROUP, LLC v. ENVIRONS, INC. et al

Filing 181

ENTRY ON SAMS' OBJECTIONS TO ENVIRONS DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - For the following reasons, SAMS' Objection to Environs' designation of deposition testimony (Dkt. 178 ) is OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/8/2011.(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SAMS HOTEL GROUP, LLC d/b/a
HOMEWOOD SUITES HOTEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ENVIRONS, INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-0930-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON SAMS’ OBJECTIONS TO ENVIRONS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff SAMS Hotel Group, LLC d/b/a Homewood
Suites Hotel’s (“SAMS”) Objection to Defendant Environs, Inc.’s (“Environs”) designation of
deposition testimony of witness Amarish Patel (“Mr. Patel”). For the following reasons, SAMS’
Objection to Environs’ designation of deposition testimony (Dkt. 178) is OVERRULED.
The Court will not delve into the factual background of the case, as the parties are well
versed. SAMS argues that Environs’ deposition designations from Mr. Patel’s August 27, 2010
discovery deposition, taken for use in a separate Indiana state court litigation, constitute
impermissible hearsay. Both parties agree that Mr. Patel is outside the reach of this Court’s
subpoena power, and thus unavailable. SAMS however, claims that because Patel’s employer,
Condor Concepts LLC, was non-compliant with respect to specific discovery requests, SAMS
was “deprived of the opportunity to adequately develop the testimony of Patel by direct, cross, or
redirect examination” as required by Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1). SAMS argues that the deposition
designations offered by Environs are impermissible hearsay. The Court respectfully disagrees.
The evidence presented through this Objection, does not support a finding that SAMS did not

have a meaningful opportunity to develop Mr. Patel’s testimony during his August 27, 2010
deposition. SAMS objection would go to the weight that the Court should give the designated
deposition testimony; not its admissibility. SAMS’ objection to the use of Mr. Patel’s deposition
testimony is therefore OVERRULED.
SAMS further objects to specific testimony by Mr. Patel, asserting that certain
designations constitute impermissible hearsay within hearsay. In the unique position of a bench
trial, where the fact finder and the gatekeeper are the same, the Court believes it can better make
determinations regarding whether each individual statement constitutes inadmissible hearsay, or
whether an exception exists, at the time of trial. For now, SAMS’ objection to those designations
characterized as impermissible hearsay is OVERRULED.
Further, SAMS has tendered counter-designations of Mr. Patel’s testimony, which this
Court will accept. Just as Environs will have full opportunity to present its designations to the
Court, SAMS’ may also present its counter-designations and both SAMS’ and Environs will be
able to raise any objections to the designations as they are offered at trial.

SO ORDERED.

Date:

07/08/2011

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution attached.

2

Distribution to:
Michael Paul Bishop
COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER
[e-mail]
John Michael Bowman
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Colin Edington Connor
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Frederick D. Emhardt
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
M. Edward Krause III
COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER
[e-mail]
Donna C. Marron
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Brett E. Nelson
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
George M. Plews
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]

3