Vargas et al v. Pfizer Inc. et al

Filing 102

JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. Document filed by Brian Transeau. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Ahrens, Julie)

Vargas et al v. Pfizer Inc. et al

Doc. 102 Att. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RALPH VARGAS and BLAND - RICKY ROBERTS, Plaintiffs, - V. PFIZER INC., PUBLICIS, INC., FLUID MUSIC, EAST WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and BRIAN TRANSEAU p/k/a "BT", Defendants.

Case No.:

04 CV 9772 (WHP) ECF Case

[PROPOSED] JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER EXHIBIT B PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST Plaintiffs expect to introduce the following exhibits in the trial of this matter. Defendants' objections, if any, are noted. No. 1. Description Opinions and conclusions contained in the declaration of Matthew Ritter, and the exhibits attached thereto. Opinions and conclusions contain in the declaration of Ivan Rodriguez, and the exhibits attached thereto. Opinions and conclusions of Dr. Steven Smith, and the exhibits attached thereto. Defendants' Objection(s) Hearsay; cumulative; Rule 702; Rule 705 Hearsay; cumulative; Rule 702; Rule 705 Hearsay; relevance; lack of foundation; inadmissible opinion testimony; opinion testimony beyond scope of expertise; cumulative; Rule 702; Rule 705 Lack of foundation; authenticity.

2.

3.

4.

The compact disc, prepared by Ivan Rodriguez, identified as exhibit "C1" produced during discovery bates stamped number 000025

Dockets.Justia.com

5.

The compact disc identified as "C2," prepared by Ivan Rodriguez and produced during discovery bates stamped number 000033 The notes and drum transcriptions prepared by Matthew Ritter attached to his declaration as exhibit "B." The waveform graphs prepared by Ivan Rodriguez comparing BDG and Aparthenonia, which is attached to Ivan Rodriguez declaration.

Lack of foundation; authenticity.

6.

Rule 702; Rule 705

7.

Rule 702; Rule 705

8.

The graphs, charts and other documents Lack of foundation; documents comparing the frequency spectra of the insufficiently identified; Rule 702; first 2.3 second of drum music in Rule 705. Aparthenonia and BDG which is attached to the expert report of Dr. Steven Smith. Plaintiffs documents identified as bates stamped numbers 000003 and 000017, identifying the names of the distribution companies that distributed FD II and BDG. A copy of the recording BDG A copy of the recording Aparthenonia A copy of the recording of the Celebrex Commercial containing Aparthenonia A copy of all declarations and reports, including all the exhibits attached thereto, prepared by witnesses and experts for Defendants, except the second report by Dr. Richard Boulanger which was submitted after the close of discovery and as an exhibit to Defendants' second motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint Lack of foundation; authenticity

9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

Lack of foundation; authenticity; documents insufficiently identified Lack of foundation; authenticity; documents insufficiently identified Lack of foundation; authenticity; documents insufficiently identified

14.

15. 16.

Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendant Transeau Plaintiffs first demand for the production of documents and things to Defendant Transeau Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendant Transeau and responses thereto Plaintiffs first demand for the production of documents and things to Defendant Transeau and responses thereto Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendant EWC Plaintiffs first demand for the production of documents and things to Defendant EWS Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendant EWC and responses thereto Plaintiffs first demand for the production of documents and things to Defendant EWC and responses thereto Defendant Transeau's Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint Defendant EWC Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint Initial Report of Dr. Steven Smith bates stamped numbers 000040, 000040A, 000040B

Hearsay; relevance. Hearsay; relevance.

17.

Hearsay; relevance.

18.

Hearsay; relevance.

19. 20.

Hearsay; relevance. Hearsay; relevance.

21. 22.

Hearsay; relevance. Hearsay; relevance.

23. 24. 25.

Hearsay; relevance; cumulative.

26.

Copy of e-mail written by Defendant Hearsay; relevance; lack of Transeau identified as Plaintiffs Exhibit 6 foundation; authenticity. from Defendant Transeau's deposition and bates stamped numbers 000044, 000045, 000046, 000047

27.

Deposition transcript of Defendant Brian Transeau taken on August 16, 2006. If necessary for impeachment. E-mail dated July 28, 2006 from Plaintiffs' counsel to Defendant BT's attorneys (only if communications between attorneys is admissible by Court). E-mail dated August 7, 2006, 3:21 P.M., from Defendant BT's attorneys to Plaintiffs' counsel (only if communications between attorneys is admissible by Court).

Hearsay; relevance.

28.

Hearsay; relevance; document insufficiently identified.

29.

Hearsay; relevance.

30.

E-mail dated August 7, 2006, 5:25 P.M., Hearsay; relevance. from Plaintiffs' counsel to Defendant BT's attorneys (only if communications between attorneys is admissible by Court). E-mail dated August 7, 2006, 5:25 P.M., Hearsay; relevance; duplicative from Plaintiffs' counsel to Defendant BT's attorneys (only if communications between attorneys is admissible by Court). Letter from Plaintiffs' counsel to Defendant BT's attorneys dated August 15, 2006 (only if communications between attorneys is admissible by Court). Declaration of Anthony Ricigliano, and the exhibits attached thereto, dated Copy of compact disc identified as Exhibit D in the declaration of Ivan Rodriguez Lack of foundation; authenticity. Hearsay; relevance.

31.

32.

33. 34.