American Home Assurance Company et al v. Greater Omaha Packing Company Inc.

Filing 580

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 574 Motion in Limine. Defendant is prohibited from offering the video of Mr. Stevens' deposition. Defendant may read the testimony. The Court sustains plaintiff's objections to the following portions of the Stevens deposition: 50:17-51:8. GOPAC has withdrawn 330:1-331:2. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY and CARGILL MEAT
SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
GREATER OMAHA PACKING COMPANY,)
INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:11CV270

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion (Filing
No. 574) “in limine” of the plaintiff to exclude the video
deposition of Shawn Stevens.

Mr. Stevens was designated as a

will-call witness by defendant Greater Omaha Packing Company
(“GOPAC”) and a may-call witness by plaintiff Cargill.

At the

beginning of the third week of trial, but before the close of the
plaintiff’s evidence, GOPAC delivered its proposed designations
for Mr. Stevens’ video deposition (Filing No. 578-1, at 1).
To offer video deposition testimony at trial, the party
offering the testimony must “submit any unresolved objections to
the court in a motion in limine after the deposition, but no
later than 7 days before trial or, alternatively, the date set by
the pretrial order.”

NECivR 30.1(f).

GOPAC did not comply with

this rule, and when Cargill objected on that basis, GOPAC changed

its position and chose to read Mr. Stevens’ deposition testimony
in order to circumvent the requirements of the local rule.
Because the testimony is not in the medium of video, Local Rule
30.1(f) is not applicable and the testimony is admissible.
An additional issue between the parties concerns
Cargill’s objections to GOPAC’s designations.

The parties agreed

to reserve objections in the video deposition and to submit their
objections to the Court in accordance to Local Rule 30.1(f).
GOPAC never submitted Mr. Stevens’ deposition and Cargill,
therefore, never presented its objections to the deposition.
GOPAC encourages the Court to consider Cargill’s objections
waived; however, the Court believes it would be a fundamental
injustice for Cargill not to be able to rely upon the parties’
agreements, particularly in light of GOPAC’s dynamic shifts in
offering Mr. Stevens’ deposition.

Therefore, the Court will

consider Cargill’s objections as timely.

After review of the

relevant case law, the parties’ briefs, and the parties’ indices
of evidence, the Court will sustain the following objection in
Mr. Stevens’ deposition:

50:17-51:8.

GOPAC agreed to withdraw

using 330:1-331:2.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s motion (Filing No. 574) is denied in
part and granted in part.

2) Defendant is prohibited from offering the video of
Mr. Stevens’ deposition.

Defendant may read the testimony.

3) The Court sustains plaintiff’s objections to the
following portions of the Stevens deposition:

50:17-51:8.

has withdrawn 330:1-331:2.
DATED this 24th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

GOPAC