Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

Filing 422

DECISION & ORDER regarding Bradshaw and Konkel deposition testimony. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 11/28/2017. (see)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
-v-

6:09-CV-853

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603

WILLIAM M. SNEED, ESQ.
THOMAS D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQ.

WILLIAMS LOPATTO PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant
1707 L Street NW
Suite 550
Washington, DC 20036

JOHN B. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
MARY A. LOPATTO, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company and defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company have submitted the depositions of witnesses E. Barry Bradshaw and Gerald P.
Konkel in advance of their use at trial in this matter. The parties have identified their
designations, counter-designations, supplemental designations, and corresponding

objections to those depositions. 1 After reviewing the depositions and objections thereto, the
following rulings are made with respect to all objections:

E. Barry Bradshaw
5/12/2014
Plaintiff's Designations

Defendant's Objections

99:9-100:7

Sustained

103:17-104:17

Overruled

105:19-24

Overruled

106:3-107:12

Overruled

107:16-109:19

Overruled

110:6-13

Overruled

110:21-113:11

Overruled

113:15-117:17

Overruled

Defendant's Counter-Designations

Plaintiff's Objections

18:19-22

Sustained

24:22-25:21

Sustained

26:10-15

Sustained

40:19-25

Sustained

41:20-42:6

Sustained

85:20-86:10

Sustained

88:23-89:2

Sustained

1
Those filings are docketed at ECF Nos. 377, 402, 410, and 417. To the extent any portion of the
courtesy copies of the transcripts (with color coded designations, cross-designations, and objections) are
inconsistent with the aforementioned court filings, the court filings have been treated as controlling for
purposes of this decision.

-2-

91:14-15

Sustained

92:13-93:4

Overruled

121:7-13

Overruled

E. Barry Bradshaw
6/12/2008
Defendant's initial response (ECF No. 402) to plaintiff's designations of Bradshaw's
6/12/2008 deposition included no specif ic objections or counter-designations, but rather a
general objection to the use of this deposition under Federal Rule of Evidence 804 and an
objection based on irrelevance. However, in a courtesy copy submitted to the Court on
11/28/17 in advance of the Bradshaw testimony being read into the record, defendant has
lodged the following two specific objections:
Plaintiff's Designations

Defendant's Objections

24:19-25:7

Overruled

26:2-5

Overruled

Gerald P. Konkel
3/31/2014
Plaintiff's Designations

Defendant's Objections

63:9-64:6

Sustained

71:14-16

Sustained

71:21-72:15

Sustained

72:20-73:2

Sustained
-3-

95:3-97:22

Sustained

147:18-148:5

Sustained

149:7-150:1

Sustained

156:2-157:1

Sustained

158:7-18

Sustained

160:22-162:8

Sustained

Defendant's Counter-Designations

Plaintiff's Objections

20:13-18

Overruled

20:21-21:6

Overruled

73:2-5

Sustained

80:11-19

Overruled

83:13-16

Overruled

86:10-14, 18-22

Overruled

90:21-91:22

Overruled

93:20-94:6

Overruled

150:8-13

Sustained

The parties are directed to conform the deposition testimony in accordance with this
decision. An updated courtesy copy for the Court is not needed.

-4-

Going forward, as the parties identify deposition testimony to be used the following
day at trial, they are directed to confer and produce one courtesy copy for the Court which
identifies (in the same color coded manner as was done with Bradshaw and Konkel) the
parties' designations and all objections thereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2017
Utica, New York.

-5-