Neelon v. Kruger et al

Filing 556

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. Further Order on Videotaped Deposition of Michael Gueudret. (IT, law2).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DANIEL P. NEELON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLAIR KRUEGER and DESERT EAGLE
RESOURCES, LTD. f/k/a GARRISON
INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 12-cv-11198-IT

FURTHER ORDER ON VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL GUEUDRET
September 10, 2015
TALWANI, D.J.
On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff provided notice of the portions of the transcript of the
deposition of Michael Gueudret (“Gueudret”) that he sought to introduce at trial. See Notice of PreTrial Disclosures [#380]. On August 12, 2015, Defendants filed two motions in limine related to
Gueudret. First, Defendants filed a Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony Regarding Bribery
Allegations [#397], which sought to preclude any testimony from Gueudret related to bribery
allegations. Second, Defendants filed a Motion in Limine to Preclude Portions of the Deposition of
Michael Gueudret [#418], which stated line-by-line objections to Gueudret’s deposition testimony.
On August 28, 2015, the court allowed in part the motion in limine regarding bribery
allegations, holding that “[i]n the absence of direct knowledge as to whether bribery in fact
occurred, the speculative inference the witness seeks to draw that bribery in fact occurred is
excluded . . . . This order does not preclude testimony regarding facts as to which [the witness] has
direct personal knowledge as to any offer or plan to engage in bribery.” See Electronic Order
[#516]. On August 30, 2015, the court ruled on Defendant’s line-by-line objections, sustaining the

vast majority of these objections. See Order Defs.’ Mot. in Limine Preclude Protions Dep. Michael
Gueudret [#527].1
Although Defendants filed two separate motions, and although the Court took the time to
address each of these motions, the parties proceeded as if the order on bribery allegations had never
issued. Plaintiff’s counsel redacted the videotape of Gueudret’s deposition in accordance with the
court’s Order on Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Portions of the Deposition of Michael
Gueudret [#527] but made no further changes in the designation of deposition testimony,
presumably relying on Defendants’ counsel to object to the specific testimony in their line-by-line
objections. Defendants’ counsel repeatedly and vehemently objected to the court’s order
concerning the bribery allegations, but failed to object in their line-by-line objections (either at the
time they were filed originally, or after the court issued the order on the bribery allegations) to
much of the testimony related to those allegations. The pages of the deposition transcript that did
not include line-by-line objections were not presented to the court.
On September 10, 2015, Plaintiff began playing for the jury the redacted videotaped
Gueudret deposition. Upon hearing portions of the tape that had not previously been provided to
the court, and out of concern that these portions may include testimony regarding alleged bribery
that lacked a basis in the testifying witness’s direct knowledge, the court stopped the playing of the
tape in order to allow further review. At the time the court stopped the videotape deposition,
Plaintiff has already played all intended portions of the testimony corresponding with pages 1
through 80 of Gueudret’s deposition. Accordingly, as to those portions, the court gave a curative
instruction to the jury, explaining that they must disregard any testimony by Gueudret that related
facts not directly within his personal knowledge. The court then took under consideration the

1

Because the court only had limited excerpts of the deposition, it denied without prejudice certain
objections to exhibits as it was not able to ascertain when and how those documents were used.
2

remaining portions of the deposition Plaintiff seeks to introduce. In light of the court’s curative
instruction, which was accepted by both parties without objection, the court does not reconsider
portions of the deposition transcript already introduced. On the basis of the court’s further review
of portions of testimony not yet introduced, the court finds as follows:
1. Page/lines 81:10-19. Testimony stricken. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Nonetheless, upon review, the court finds the lines properly
excluded under Electronic Order #516.
2. Page/Line 81:20-22. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
3. Page/Line 81:23-24. Testimony stricken. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Nonetheless, upon review, the court finds the lines properly
excluded under Electronic Order #516.
4. Page/Line 82:1-4. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their line-byline objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under Electronic
Order #516.
5. Page/Lines 83:9-16 (ending with word “yes”). Testimony allowed. Defendants
did not object in their line-by-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines
not excluded under Electronic Order #516.
6. Page/Lines 83:16-19 (starting with “And”). Testimony stricken. Defendants did
not object in their line-by-line objections. Nonetheless, upon review, the court finds
the lines properly excluded under Electronic Order #516.

3

7. Page/Lines 83:20-24. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
8. Page/lines 84:10-85:5. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
9. Page/Line 85:6-24. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their line-byline objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under Electronic
Order #516.
10. Page/Line 86:1-22. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their line-byline objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under Electronic
Order #516.
11. Page/lines 87:13-87:19. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their
line-by-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
12. Page/Lines 87:20-24. Testimony stricken. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Nonetheless, upon review, the court finds the lines properly
excluded under Electronic Order #516.
13. Page/Line 88:1-8. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their line-byline objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under Electronic
Order #516.
14. Phrase on page/line 88:9 (“I just paid them because”). Testimony stricken.
Defendants did not object in their line-by-line objections. Nonetheless, upon review,
the court finds the lines properly excluded under Electronic Order #516.
4

15. Page/Lines 88:9-16 (beginning “I had”). Testimony allowed. Defendants did not
object in their line-by-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not
excluded under Electronic Order #516.
16. Page/Lines 88:19-22 Testimony stricken. Defendants’ prior objection should have
been sustained.
17. Page/lines 88:23-89:17. Testimony stricken. Defendants did not object in their
line-by-line objections. Nonetheless, upon review, the court finds the lines properly
excluded under Electronic Order #516.
18. Page/Lines 88:18-21. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
19. Page/Lines 89:22-24. Testimony stricken. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Nonetheless, upon review, the court finds the lines properly
excluded under Electronic Order #516.
20. Page/Lines 90:1 – 90:23. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their
line-by-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
21. Page/Line 91:3-19. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their line-byline objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under Electronic
Order #516.
22. Page/Line 91:20-21. Testimony allowed. Defendants’ hearsay objection was
overruled in Order on Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Portions of the
Deposition of Michael Gueudret [#527]. Upon review, the court finds the lines not
excluded under Electronic Order #516.
5

23. Page/Line 91:22-24 (ending with “stopped”). Testimony allowed. Defendants
did not object in their line-by-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines
not excluded under Electronic Order #516.
24. Page/lines 91:24-92:2 (beginning at “because they”). Testimony stricken.
Defendants did not object in their line-by-line objections. Nonetheless, upon review,
the court finds the lines properly excluded under Electronic Order #516.
25. Page/lines 92:3-93:6. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
26. Page/Lines 93:13-22. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
27. Page/Line 93:23-94:9. Testimony allowed. Defendants’ lack of foundation
objection was overruled in Order on Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude
Portions of the Deposition of Michael Gueudret [#527]. Upon review, the court
finds the lines not excluded under Electronic Order #516.
28. Page/lines 94:10-95:13. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their
line-by-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
29. Page/Lines 111:19-112:16. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their
line-by-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.

6

30. Page/Line 113:5-118:23. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their
line-by-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
31. Page/Line 123:13-124:18. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their
line-by-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
32. Page/Line 127:13-18. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their lineby-line objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under
Electronic Order #516.
33. Page/line 128:4-16. Testimony allowed. Defendants did not object in their line-byline objections. Upon review, the court finds the lines not excluded under Electronic
Order #516.
34. Page/Line 158:13-159:3. Testimony allowed. Defendants’ hearsay objection was
overruled in Order on Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Portions of the
Deposition of Michael Gueudret [#527]. Upon review, the court finds the lines not
excluded under Electronic Order #516.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 10, 2015

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

7