Liverman v. Bryan County Board of County Commissioners et al

Filing 104

OPINION AND ORDER Regarding Motions in Limine and Deposition Designations by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder: Granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion in Limine by Ken Golden; Granting 66 Motion in Limine by Cody Liverman; Granting in part and denying in part 82 Objection to Deposition Designations re: depo of Lisa Miller by Ken Golden ; and Granting in part and denying in part 87 Objection to Deposition Designations re: depo of Jaime Newberry by Ken Golden. (ndd, Deputy Clerk)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-29-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING
MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND
DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
A. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and Brief in Support [Docket No. 66] is
GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
B. Regarding Defendant’s Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 62], the Court
orders as follows:
1. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to items 1-11, and 13.
2. 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.
3. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to item 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 1-4, and 8-16.

2. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are
DENIED as to items 5-7, 17, and 20-21.
3. The Defendant’s Objections in items 18-19 are denied as to the
mention of Plaintiff Liverman but granted otherwise.
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 1-12, 17-35
(including both objections identified as No. 35 on pp. 9-10), and 37-46.
2. The Defendant’s Objections are DENIED as to items 13-16.
3. The Defendant’s Objections with regard to item 36 are GRANTED as
to page 146, line 1 – page 148, line 13, and DENIED as to page 148,
line 14 – page 149, line 25.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2016.