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