GOLDENSON et al v. STEFFENS et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 296 Objection to Deposition Designations; denying 297 Motion to Strike. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DANIEL R. GOLDENSON, et al.,
JOHN L. STEFFENS, et al.,
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND COUNTERDESIGNATIONS AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
With trial scheduled to begin tomorrow, the Defendants just filed a series of
objections to the Plaintiffs’ June 2, 2014 deposition designations, and have
submitted their own designated portions of the deposition testimony. The Plaintiffs
are understandably irritated at the late objections. With considerable reluctance,
the Court agrees with the Defendants that it inadvertently failed to set a deadline
for their objections to the deposition designations; therefore the Court is addressing
the Defendants’ objections and designations even though they are unusually tardy.
On April 14, 2014, the Court issued a pretrial order setting July 7, 2014 as
the trial date and establishing several deadlines, including a June 2, 2014 deadline
for deposition designations. Minute Entry (ECF No. 244). In accordance with that
order, the Plaintiffs designated portions of the depositions of six witnesses: (1)
Brian Burns, (2) Fabio Savoldelli, (3) Steven J. Spitz, M.D., (4) Arnold M. Mayberg,
CPA, (5) J. Ezra Merkin, and (6) Sonia M. Brooks, CPA. Pls.’ Dep. Designations
(ECF No. 266) (Pls.’ Dep.).
On July 7, 2014, the jury was selected and trial is
scheduled to begin on July 10, 2014.
The Defendants waited until July 8, 2014 to object to the Plaintiffs’
deposition designations of three witnesses, (1) Fabio Savoldelli, (2) Steven J. Spitz,
M.D., and (3) Ezra Merkin, and to make counter-designations. Defs.’ Objections and
Counter-Designations to Pls.’ Dep. Designations (ECF No. 296) (Defs.’ Objections).
Irritated at the last minute filing, the Plaintiffs fired off a motion urging the Court
to strike the Defendants’ objections and counter-designations. Pls.’ Mot. to Strike
Defs.’ Objections and Counter-Designations to Pls.’ Dep. Designations (ECF No. 297)
(Pls.’ Mot.). Quick to their own defense, the Defendants immediately responded.
Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. to Strike Defs.’ Objections and Counter-Designations to Pls.’
Dep. Designations (ECF No. 298) (Defs.’ Resp.).
A preliminary question is whether the Defendants should have filed their
objections to the Plaintiffs’ deposition designations earlier.
The Pretrial Order
specified when the deposition designations were due, but did not specify a due date
for any objections to the designations. This is a mistake the Court will not make
again. That said, the Defendants are technically correct that they could object and
counter-designate at any time up to the presentation of the deposition itself.
Whether waiting until the day after the jury is selected and the day before trial to
press objections and counter-designations to earlier designated depositions is
consistent with the spirit of professional cooperation commonly practiced in this
District is another matter. Here, the issue is aggravated by the fact that all the
proffered depositions were videotaped and, therefore, adjusting the depositions is
not simply a matter of striking and adding testimony from a transcript that would
be read to a jury, but also requires the editing of a videotape to play to the jury.
LAY WITNESS AS EXPERT
There is one exception.
In their objections, the Defendants contend that
Fabio Savoldelli is being offered as an “unqualified expert witness.”
Objections at 1. The Plaintiffs deposed Mr. Savoldelli on February 16, 2012 and it is
this deposition they intend to introduce as evidence in this case. Pls.’ Dep. Attach. 2
Dep. of Fabio Savoldelli. Presumably the Plaintiffs did not designate Mr. Savoldelli
as an expert witness; however, they did list him as a witness in their Pretrial
Memorandum. Pls.’ Final Pretrial Mem. Attach. 1 Schedule A—List of Potential
Witnesses (ECF No. 241). At least as of the final pretrial conference, the Defendants
were aware that the Plaintiffs intended to present Mr. Savoldelli as a witness and
as of June 2, 2014, they were aware that the Plaintiffs had designated portions of
his deposition testimony to be introduced at trial.
Nevertheless, the Defendants did not mention any issues about Mr.
Savoldelli’s testimony either in their pretrial memorandum or at the pretrial
conference. See Defs.’ Pretrial Mem. (ECF No. 242). The Court set a deadline of
May 7, 2014 for motions in limine and, although the Defendants did file some
motions in limine, they did not file a motion concerning Mr. Savoldelli’s status as a
lay or expert witness. From the Court’s perspective, the Defendants should have
brought questions about whether Mr. Savoldelli should have been designated as an
expert to the Court’s attention long before the day before trial.
If the Defendants wished to contend that the Plaintiffs were presenting an
expert witness in lay clothing, they could have (1) alerted the Court to the issue at
the pretrial conference; (2) filed a motion in limine on or before May 7, 2014; or (3)
filed some other motion in time to allow the Plaintiffs to properly respond and to
allow the Court to consider the issue. To determine whether a proposed lay witness
is being presented as an expert is a complicated issue because lay witnesses are
allowed to testify about things in their particular field that may not be a matter of
common knowledge to a jury. Yet, there is a line between lay and expert testimony
that a lay witness with specialized knowledge will sometimes cross.
Because the Defendants waited until the day before trial to raise this issue,
the Court concludes that the Defendants have waived the right to contend that Mr.
Savoldelli is testifying as an expert.
At the same time, the Court has quickly
reviewed his designated deposition testimony—both by the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants—and concludes that his testimony is consistent with that of a lay
person with specialized knowledge of a particular field, and not of an expert. On
both these bases, the Court overrules the Defendants’ objections to Mr. Savoldelli’s
designated testimony as an expert witness.
DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
With the following exceptions, the Court overrules all of the Defendants’
objections. The Court sustains the Defendants’ objections to the following:
1) Page 28; Lines 15-17: “People thought he could have been front running,
thought a lot of things about what he was doing.”
2) Page 32: Lines 1-15.
The Court notes that the Defendants premised some objections on the
asserted inadmissibility of the content of documents or papers that Mr. Savoldelli
was asked about or mentioned during his testimony. The Court does not know
whether these exhibits will be separately admitted into evidence, in which case they
would not be hearsay, or whether the documents were being used merely to refresh
Mr. Savoldelli’s recollection, in which case the content of the document would have
The Court does not agree with Defendants’ objection to any
identification of a document used to refresh Mr. Savoldelli’s recollection, but agrees
that reading the content of the document itself poses an evidentiary issue if the
document is not separately admitted into evidence.
The Court overrules all of the Defendants’ objections.
The Court overrules all of the Defendants’ objections.
The Court reviewed each of the Defendants’ counter-designations and has
concluded that they are properly admissible. Because the Plaintiffs focused on the
late nature of the Defendants’ objections, they did not indicate any specific
objections to the Defendants’ counter-designations.
If the Plaintiffs have any
specific objections, they are free to raise them to the Court—keeping in mind,
however, that during trial, it will be more difficult to edit the videotape.
Fabio Savoldelli Deposition Testimony
The Defendants made no counter-designations.
Steven J. Spitz, M.D. and Ezra Merkin Deposition Testimony
Subject to Plaintiffs’ objections, the Court approves all Defendants’ counterdesignations.
In the Defendants’ response, they represented to the Court that they could
“perform such edits and provide a new version of the video to Plaintiffs so they can
confirm the contents.” Defs.’ Resp. at 3. They further represented that “[g]iven the
current state of technology, those decisions can easily be implemented in a very
short amount of time.” Id. Especially in view of the extraordinary lateness of the
Defendants’ actions, the Court intends to hold them to the letter of their
The Court GRANTS IN PART the Defendants’ Objections and CounterDesignations (ECF No. 296), to the extent the Defendants object to lines 28:15-17
and 32:1-15 of the deposition of Mr. Savoldelli and to the extent the Defendants
offer counter-designations, the latter subject to the Goldensons’ objections at trial;
otherwise DENIES the Defendants’ objections; and DENIES the Goldensons’
Motion to Strike (ECF No. 297).
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 9th day of July, 2014
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?