Austin v. Rexon Industrial Corp. et al

Filing 109

ORDER granting 106 Motion for ruling on sequence in which Plaintiff's designated videotaped deposition testimony will be played to jury. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/26/2015. (nv)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00066-MR-DLH
MICHAEL AUSTIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
REXON INDUSTRIAL CORP. and
)
POWER TOOL SPECIALISTS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling
on Sequence in Which Plaintiff’s Designated Videotaped Deposition
Testimony Will Be Played to Jury [Doc. 106].
The Plaintiff and the Defendants have each designated excerpts of
videotaped deposition testimony to be played to the jury at trial. The Plaintiff
proposes to edit the videos in such a way that the substance of the proffered
testimony would be organized by topic, which in some instances would result
in the presentation of testimony out of the order in which the testimony was
taken. The Plaintiff also proposes to play only his designations to the jury
without

incorporating

the

Defendants’

counter-designations.

Defendants object to both of these proposals.

The

In order to avoid any

confusion and ensure that the DVD’s brought to trial are properly edited, the
Plaintiff asks that the Court resolve this dispute in advance of trial. [Doc.
106].
In keeping with the custom and practice of this Court and the rule of
completeness, the parties shall be expected to edit any videotaped
depositions so that the designated testimony (whether designated by the
Plaintiff or the Defendants) shall be played to the jury in chronological order,
i.e. in the order in which the testimony was taken at the deposition. If any
deposition testimony is to be read into the record from a transcript, the parties
shall be expected to present such testimony in chronological order as well.
If the Defendants make counter-designations of any testimony given in
response to Plaintiff’s counsel’s questions, then Plaintiff’s counsel will read
that particularly testimony, even though counter-designated by the
Defendants.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling
on Sequence in Which Plaintiff’s Designated Videotaped Deposition
Testimony Will Be Played to Jury [Doc. 106] is GRANTED, and the parties
shall be expected to present any deposition testimony at trial in the manner
specified in this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2