Mid-Missouri Waste Systems LLC v. LaFarge North America Inc

Filing 221

ORDER ruling parties' objections to deposition designations. Signed by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. on 5/15/09. (Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
MID-MISSOURI WASTE SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 07-233-CV-W-FJG ) ) ) )

ORDER
James D. Menefee ­ November 11, 2008 Plaintiff's Objections Defendant's Designations Page Line(s) Page Line(s) 11 22 12 4 19 1-2 22 6-25 23 24 24 22 30 14 59 12-15 59 18-22 67 3-8 67 11-16 67 19-21 24 4 25 8 31 22 Mid-Missouri's Objection(s) Non-responsive, foundation, speculation. Only a question designated, no answer. Foundation, speculation. Leading, foundation. Foundation, speculation. Foundation, speculation. Foundation, speculation. Foundation, speculation. Foundation, calls for legal conclusion. Foundation, calls for legal conclusion. Foundation, calls for legal conclusion. Ruling Overruled Sustained Sustained Sustained Overruled Overruled Sustained Sustained Overruled Overruled Overruled

67 24 68 6-7 71 3-6 86 3-4 89 11-13 92 7-10

68 2

Foundation, calls for legal conclusion. Foundation, calls for legal conclusion. No question pending/designated. Witness never answered this question. Answer not designated. Relevance.

Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Sustained Sustained

James Menefee - November 12, 2008 Defendant's Objections Plaintiff's Designations P Line(s) P Line(s) 20 12-14 Lafarge's Objection(s) Object: Relevance: 1997 is pre MMWS's involvement testimony regarding an alleged breach in 1997 is irrelevant to the current litigation. Furthermore, Mr. Menefee was unable to recall if he ever told Lafarge that they were in breach. There has been no testimony presented or documents produced to evidence that he notified them of a breach. Menefee never claimed that Lafarge was in breach. Object: Relevance: 1997 is pre MMWS's involvement testimony regarding an alleged breach in 1997 is irrelevant to the current litigation. Furthermore, Mr. Menefee was unable to recall if he ever told Lafarge that they were in breach. There has been no testimony presented or documents produced to evidence that he notified them of a breach. Menefee never claimed that Lafarge was in breach. Objection: Witness didn't understand the question as he testify to later. Objection to form of question, lack of foundation. 2 Ruling Sustained

20 16

21 3

Sustained

44 23

45 1

Overruled

66 21

67 2

Objection to form as to what does "okay" mean. Answer isn't responsive to the question, it's argumentative and is unsupported by the facts and testimony in this matter. Objection as to relevance. Objection: Mis-states the testimony and evidence in this matter. Objection: Mis-states the testimony and evidence in this matter.

Overruled

79 16-18 80 5-20

Sustained Sustained

3

Jane Witheridge ­ November 24, 2008 Plaintiff's Objections Defendant's Designations Page Line(s) Page Line(s) 23 16 24 4 24 7-18 37 5-6 37 11 40 12-20 41 14-16 41 18 52 3-7 52 15-17 65 14 81 3-9 81 15 82 14 85 14 87 13-16 87 20 88 20 94 4 106 18 88 14 90 3 95 2 107 4 82 9 84 19 86 15 66 15 44 1 Mid-Missouri's Objection(s) Foundation, speculation, relevance. Foundation, speculation, relevance. Answer to question is not designated. Question is not designated. Foundation, speculation. No answer to question posed. Foundation, speculation. Question is vague and confusing. Foundation, speculation. Question is vague and confusing. Foundation, speculation. Foundation, speculation, hearsay. Foundation, speculation, relevance. Foundation, speculation, relevance. Foundation, speculation, hearsay, vague and ambiguous question. Foundation, speculation, hearsay, leading. Foundation, speculation, hearsay, leading. Foundation, speculation, hearsay, leading. Foundation, speculation, hearsay, leading. Foundation, speculation, vague and ambiguous, no question designated. Foundation, speculation. Ruling Sustained Sustained Sustained Sustained Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Sustained Sustained Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Sustained Sustained

4

Defendant's Designations Page Line(s) Page Line(s) 111 14 114 5 120 14-22 122 24 124 2 135 16 152 15-17 152 20 153 16 154 5-14 160 4-18 160 22 200 13 201 18 162 10 201 16 202 2 153 3 154 1 123 13 125 5 136 6

Mid-Missouri's Objection(s) Vague and confusing questions, foundation, speculation, narrative answer. Relevance. Foundation, speculation, no answer designated. Foundation, speculation, vague and confusing questions, leading. Foundation, speculation. Vague and ambiguous question, foundation, speculation. Vague and ambiguous question, foundation, speculation. Foundation, speculation, hearsay. Foundation, speculation, hearsay. Foundation, speculation. Foundation, speculation, hearsay. Foundation, speculation. Foundation, speculation.

Ruling Overruled Sustained Sustained Sustained Sustained Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled Overruled

5

Jane Witheridge - November 24, 2008 Defendant's Objections Lafarge's Objection(s) Plaintiff's Designations P Line(s) P Line(s) 55 15 56 5 Objection: Calls for a legal conclusion. 65 4-5 176 14-22 Objection. Answer is not designated. Objection: Calls for a legal conclusion. Lack of foundation. Object to Form. Compound. Objection: Calls for a legal conclusion. Lack of foundation. Object to Form. Compound. Objection: Form. Compound. Lack of foundation. Vague. Ambiguous. Objection, calls for a legal conclusion, lack of foundation. Object to Form-Compound. Seeks a legal conclusion. 180 14 Objection: Form. Compound. Lack of foundation. Calls for a legal conclusion. Mis-states witnesses prior testimony. Questioning on re-direct is also leading, coaching. Objection: Compound. Mis-states prior testimony. Leading, coaching. Seeks legal conclusion as to weather those activities constitute mining. Objection: Calls for a legal conclusion. Compound. Mis-states prior testimony. Calls for speculation and use of a hypothetical. Objection: Form. Compound. Calls for speculation. Uses a hypothetical and calls for speculation. Seeks a legal conclusion. Ruling Sustained Overruled Sustained

177 4-13

Sustained

178 10-24

Sustained

179 2-8 179 9-16 179 23

Sustained Sustained Overruled

180 12

181 2

Overruled

181 13

185 6

Sustained

185 7

185 19

Sustained

6

Plaintiff's Designations P Line(s) P Line(s) 185 20 186 9

Lafarge's Objection(s) Objection: Form. Compound. Lack of foundation. Objection: Mis-states the contents of the document. Lack of foundation. Objection: Lack of foundation, object to form-compound. Objection: Seeks a legal conclusion, lack of foundation, object to form. Compound. Objection: Form. Vague. Ambiguous. Doesn't define what he means by use of the term "concern." Objection: Form. Vague. Ambiguous. Doesn't define what he means by use of the term "concern." Objection, is seeking expert testimony. Objection: Form-compound. Calls for speculation. Lack of foundation. Objection: Calls for a legal conclusion. Form. Leading.

Ruling Sustained

186 16-24 187 3-11 187 12 188 3

Overruled Overruled Sustained

188 20 189 10

Overruled

189 22 190 7

Overruled

189 11-15 189 22 190 7 191 5-13 195 24 196 24

Sustained Overruled Sustained Sustained

Objection: Form. Leading. Mis-states the contents of the document. Seeks a legal conclusion. Lack of foundation. Objection: Mis-states the contents of the document. Form-leading questions on direct exam. Calls for a hypothetical and speculation. Seeks a legal conclusion. S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR. Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. Chief United States District Judge 7

197 22

200 8

Sustained

Date: 5/15/09 Kansas City, Missouri