Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
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,
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,
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
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
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.
E. Barry Bradshaw
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:
Gerald P. Konkel
The parties are directed to conform the deposition testimony in accordance with this
decision. An updated courtesy copy for the Court is not needed.
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.
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?