Meyer et al v. Currie Tech Corp. et al
Filing
209
ORDER that Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Counter-Designations of Deposition Testimony are sustained in part and granted in part as set forth in this Order. Ordered by Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (JSF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MARCIE MEYER and MICHAEL
MEYER,
Plaintiffs,
8:16CV542
ORDER
v.
CURRIE TECH CORP. and ACCELL
NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ CounterDesignations of Deposition Testimony (Filing No. 202). Based upon the Court’s review
of portions of the deposition transcripts which the parties claim will be offered in evidence,
the Court rules as follows:
Mitch Robb (Part 1), Ex. 148
Page: Line Number
p. 55, ln 10 after “I can’t
speak to it. . .”
p. 57, ln 20 to p. 64, ln 19
Objection
Move to strike non-responsive
portion of answer.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
p. 113, ln 25 to p. 114, ln 24
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
Rulings
Overruled
Overruled as to
negligence claim only as
to designated – (not all of
range
designated/highlighted)
Overruled – as to
negligence claim
Mitch Robb (Part 2), Ex. 309
Page: Line Number
p. 34, ln 15 to p. 35, ln 1
Objection
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
Rulings
Overruled as to
negligence claim
p. 36, ln 13 to p. 38, ln 20
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
p. 39, ln 19 to p. 39, ln 22
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
p. 45, ln 11 to p. 46, ln 3
p. 55, ln 14 to p. 56, ln 19
Move to strike non-responsive
portion of answer
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
p. 58, ln 11 to p. 58, ln 22
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
Overruled as to
negligence claim
Overruled as to
negligence claim
Overruled
Overruled as to
negligence claim
Overruled as to
negligence claim
Beth Horner, Ex. 151
Page: Line Number
p. 134, ln 14-18
Objection
Not responsive to any question,
no question was designated
Foundation
Form and speculation
Rulings
Sustained
Page: Line Number
Objection
Rulings
p. 89, ln 1 to p. 92, ln 5
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #8
Sustained
p. 152, ln 21 to p. 153, ln 2
p. 155, ln 23
Overruled
The cited line/page is
only an objection;
Overruled
Tracy Spinella, Ex. 294
Justin Schniderman, Ex. 145
Page: Line Number
p. 48, ln 4 to p. 51, ln 11
(If overruled – Plaintiffs
designate p. 51, ln 12 to p. 51,
ln 14.)
p. 54, ln 6 to . 54, ln 22
(If overruled – Plaintiffs
designate p. 54, ln 23 to p. 55,
ln 12.)
Objection
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
Rulings
Overruled – Plaintiffs may
add the counter-designation
requested
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
Overruled – Plaintiffs may
add the counter-designation
requested
Larry Pizzi (2), Ex. 211
Page: Line Number
p. 87, ln 3-9
Objection
Move to strike non-responsive
portion of answer
2
Rulings
Overruled
Larry Pizzi (3), Ex. 303
Page: Line Number
p. 18, ln 25, to p. 19, ln 16
Objection
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine #2
Rulings
Overruled as to
negligence claim
The parties are reminded that any video depositions to be used at trial should be
edited so that any objectionable testimony is removed.
Dated this 6th day of March 2019.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
United States District Judge
3
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?