Decker v. I.E. Miller Services, Inc. et al

Filing 161

ORDER re Troy Bakken Deposition Rulings. By Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (BG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Scot Decker,
Plaintiff,
v.
I.E. Miller Services, Inc., et. al
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

TROY BAKKEN DEPOSITION
RULINGS
Case No. 4:14-cv-00088

The following are the court’s rulings with respect to the designations and objections by the
parties for the presentation of the deposition testimony of the above-named witness.

Party

Designation

Objection

Ruling

Allowed

D

5/9-9/6

P objects to 8/12-8/14 as
leading

Sustained

5/9-8/11
8/17-9/6

P

*5/9-6/5

P

*6/24-7/6

P

*7/8-7/8

P

*7/12-8/2

D

9/12-13/24

P objects to 12/6-12/22 and
13/4-13/13 as violating
order re motions in limine,
lack of relevancy and
foundation

Overruled

9/12-12/9
12/14-13/5
13/7-13/13

P objects to 13/15-13/25 on
same grounds

Sustained

P

*9/12-10/14

1

D

14/1-15/2

Excluded 14/214/24 based on
order re motions in
limine re Murex

14/25-15/2

P

*14/14-14/19

D

15/20-16/9

15/20-16/9

D

17/2-17/8

17/2-17/8

P

18/1-18/17

18/1-18/17

D

18/23-19/11

18/23-19/11

P

20/7-20/21

20/7-20/21

P

21/18-22/24

21/18-22/24

D

22/13-23/17

22/13-23/17

P

24/3-25/13

24/3-25/13

P

25/15-25/15

25/15-25/15

P

25/17-25/25

P

26/01-27/16

P

27/18-27/18

27/18-27/18

P

27/20-28/4

27/20-28/4

P

28/6-28/6

28/6-28/6

P

28/8-28/15

28/8-28/15

P

28/23-29/4

28/23-29/4

P

29/8-32/1

29/8-32/1

P

32/11-33/13

32/11-33/13

P

33/16-33/18

33/16-33/18

Excluded on Rule
403 confusion
grounds
D objects based on motion
in limine rulings and lack of
relevance

2

Overruled

26/1-27/16

P

33/24-36/2

D objects to 34/4 to 35/6
based on argumentative,
asked and answered,
speculation, and Rule 403

Overruled

D further objects on same
grounds to 35/7 to 37/20 on
same grounds and because
improperly refer to other
witness testimony

33/24-36/2

Overruled - form
objection waived
when not made at
the time and witness
agreed with the
point of the question
in any event at 35/12

P

36/4-37/20

See above

Overruled

P

38/20-38/25

D objects to 38/20 to 40/8
as relating to testimony that
the court stated it would
exclude with respect to
witness Anderson and
hearsay

Sustained - lacks
relevancy given
court’s rulings

P

39/1-39/23

See above

Sustained - lacks
relevancy given
court’s rulings

P

39/25-39-25

See above

Sustained

P

40/2-40/8

See above

Sustained in part
and overruled in part

40/5-40/8

P

40/11-43/10

D objects to 40/11 to 47/25
under Rules 402-03 as
being irrelevant and wasting
time

Overruled

40/11-43/10

P

43/12-43/14

See above

Overruled

43/12-43/14

P

43/16-43/23

See above

Overruled

43/16-43/23

P

43/25-44-02

See above

Overruled

43/25-44-02

P

44/06-47-25

See above

Overruled

44/06-47-25

3

36/4-37/20

P

48/18-49/2

D objects 48/18 for lack of
relevancy and waste of time
under Rule 402-03 grounds
but adds that if admitted
that 48/14-48/17 needs to
be played

Overruled but
include 48/14-48/17

48/14-49/2

P

49/4-51/4

See above

Overruled

49/4-51/4

P

51/7-52/1

See above

Overruled

51/7-52/1

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of February, 2018.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

4