Hauser v. Powell

Filing 112

OPINION AND ORDER on Various Deposition Objections Including 100 Memorandum regarding Plaintiff's Objections to Portions of Dr. Adam Di Dio's Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson on 9/15/2022. (ols, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:17-cv-03844-JMC Document 112 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
ROSEMARY MASON HAUSER,
Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

MARK RICHARD POWELL. et al.,

*

Defendants.
*

*

Civil Case No.: 1:17-cv-03844-JMC

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION AND ORDER ON VARIOUS DEPOSITION OBJECTIONS
INCLUDING ECF NO. 100

The Court has before it Plaintiff’s objections and request to strike certain portions of two
video depositions. The first set of objections, included in the Parties’ Joint Pretrial Order,
concern the testimony of Defense Expert Dr. Beveridge. The Court will overrule most of the
objections (which were largely based on hearsay). An expert can rely on hearsay in forming an
opinion, and most of those records will be in evidence already anyway. The Court will grant the
following objections:
Page 48 Line 21 to Page 49 Line 7.
Page 53, Line 5 to Page 54 Line 6.
Page 59 Line 3 to Line 16.
The second set of objections were filed separately as ECF No. 100 and concern
objections to the some of the voir dire and cross examination questions by Defense Counsel of
Plaintiff’s Expert Dr. Di Dio. As to those objections, the Court overrules the objections except
as follows:

Case 1:17-cv-03844-JMC Document 112 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 2

The Court will reserve ruling on Page 9, Line 12 to Page 9, Line 17 until hearing
limited argument from counsel to further understand the context of the question
regarding NFL Blacklisting.
The Court will grant the objections to Page 49, Line 5 to Page 49, Line 12; Page
50, Line 10 to Page 52, Line 6; Page 52, Line 24 to Page 53, Line 17 as matter so
insurance can confuse and mislead the jury as well as implicate the collateral
source rule.
The Court will grant the objections to Page 63, Line 8 to Page 67, Line 20 and
Page 106, Line 2 to Page 108, Line 15 for the reasons given in its ruling on the
Buchholz motion regarding Plaintiff’s orthopedic care.
The Court will grant the objections to Page 77, Line 10 to Page 77, Line 14
regarding Dr. Di Dio’s thoughts on whether another treating physician is a “good”
doctor.
The Court will leave to the parties the logistics of preventing this testimony from
reaching the jury.

Date: September 15, 2022

J. Mark Coulson
United States Magistrate Judge

2