Walker v. Bryan County Board of County Commissioners et al

Filing 102

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion in Limine; granting 63 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 82 Objection to Deposition Designations; and granting in part and denying in part 87 Objection to Deposition Designations. (ndd, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RYAN WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEN GOLDEN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-28-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING
MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND
DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
A. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and Supporting Brief [Docket No. 63] is
GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
B. Regarding Defendant’s Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59], the Court
orders as follows:
1. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to items 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11.
2. The Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to item 3, with the proviso
that it may later be deemed relevant depending on testimony provided at
trial, particularly from Lisa Miller.
3. The Defendant’s motion is DENIED and PERMITTED as to item 5 to
the same extent denied and permitted in CIV-15-29-SPS, Liverman v.
Golden.
4. The Defendant’s motion is DENIED as to item 7 subject to the
provisions of Fed. R. Evid. 608.
5. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to item 12 (“Witness and
Exhibits not listed on Plaintiff’s witness or exhibit list”), to be re-urged
at the time of trial if appropriate.

6. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to items 13-14.
C. Regarding the Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations
for Lisa Miller [Docket No. 82], the Court orders as follows:
1. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are
GRANTED as to items 1-5, and 8-9, 13, and 17-18.
2. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are
GRANTED as to items 10-12, with the same proviso as stated with
regard to item 3 of Defendant’s Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket
No. 59], that they may later be deemed relevant depending on
testimony provided at trial, particularly from Lisa Miller.
3. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are
DENIED as to items 6-7, 14-16, and 20-21.
4. The Defendant’s Objections with regard to item 19 are DENIED as to
page 68, lines 1-3, and GRANTED as to page 68, lines 4-5.
D. Regarding the Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations
for Jaime Newberry Calfy [Docket No. 87], the Court orders as follows:
1. The Defendant’s Objections are GRANTED as to items 1-8, 10, 12-13,
and 18-25, 30-40, 42, 46-47.
2. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are
GRANTED as to items 9, with the same proviso as stated with regard
to item 3 of Defendant’s Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59],
that they may later be deemed relevant depending on testimony
provided at trial, particularly from Lisa Miller.
3. The Defendant’s Objections are DENIED as to items 11, 14-17, 26-29,
41, 43-44, 48.
4. The Defendant’s Objection as to item 45 is DENIED, except that it is
GRANTED with regard to any reference to Cody Liverman.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of February, 2016.