United States of America et al v. Bluewave Healthcare Consultants Inc et al

Filing 792

ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Objections to the Government's Deposition Designations for Defendant Robert Bradford Johnson and Defendant Floyd Calhoun Dent, III, and the Government's Objections to Defendants' Counter-Designations. (Dkt. No. 761 .) The Court has ruled on each Objection as set forth in the Order. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 12/1/2017. (sshe, )

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
United States of America, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ex rel. Scarlett Lutz, et al.,

)
)
)

Civil Action No. 9: 14-cv-00230-RMG
(Consolidated with 9:11-cv-1593-RMG and
9: l 5-cv-2458-RMG)

)
)

)
Plaintiffs-Relators,
v.

Berkeley Heartlab, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER and OPINION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

~~~~~~~~~~-)
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Objections to the Government's
Deposition Designations for Defendant Robert Bradford Johnson and Defendant Floyd Calhoun
Dent, III, and the Government's Objections to Defendants' Counter-Designations. (Dkt. No.
761.) The Court has ruled on each Objection as set forth below.
I.

Deposition of Robert Bradford Johnson (Dkt. No. 761-3)

Government's
Designation
Pg. 12, Ln. 24Pg. 14, Ln. 16

Defendants' Objections
Statements about Johnson's other
business assets are irrelevant.

and
Pg. 15, Ln. 9 Pg. 16, Ln. 10

-1-

Ruling
Objection is denied because
statements are relevant and
prejudice does not outweigh
probative value.

Pg. 42, Ln. 22 Pg. 44, Ln. 8

Information about Johnson's
salary from over a decade ago is
irrelevant.

Objection is denied because
statements are relevant and
prejudice does not outweigh
probative value.

No objection, but Government
objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 15 3, Ln. 19 - Pg.
154, Ln. 1] for being beyond the
scope of the designation.
No objection, but Government
objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 205, Ln. 22 - Pg.
206, Ln. 17] for being beyond the
scope of the designation.
Information about earnings of
other businesses compared to
Blue Wave is more prejudicial
than probative.
No objection, but Government
objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 235 , Ln. 7 -14]
for being beyond the scope of the
designation.

Government's obj ection to
counter-designation is denied.

and

Pg. 69, Ln. 17 Pg. 70, Ln.3
and

Pg. 73 , Ln. 7-16
Pg. 153, Ln. 2-8

Pg. 204, Ln. 15 Pg. 205 , Ln. 12

Pg. 213 , Ln. 23 Pg. 215 , Ln. 15

Pg. 232, Ln. 11 Pg.233 ,Ln. 19

II.

Government' s objection to
counter-designation is denied.

Objection is denied because
statements are relevant and
prejudice does not outweigh
probative value.
Government' s obj ection to
counter-designation is denied.

Deposition of Floyd Calhoun Dent, III (Dkt. No. 761-2)

Government's
Designation

Pg. 8, Ln. 2-5
and

Defendants' Objections

Ruling

Testimony of Dent's past salaries
at different jobs is irrelevant and
prejudicial.

Objection is denied because
statements are relevant and prejudice
does not outweigh probative value.

No objection, but Government
objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 184, Ln. 17 - Pg.
185, Ln. 13] for being beyond the

Government's objection to counterdesignation is denied.

Pg. 88, Ln. 4-25
Pg. 180, Ln. 24 Pg. 184, Ln. 16

-2-

scope of the designation and that
deponent' s answers are nonresponsive.
Pg. 185, Ln. 14- No objection, but Government
24
objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 185, Ln. 25 - Pg.
186, Ln. 15] for being beyond the
scope of the designation.

III.

Government' s obj ection to counterdesignation is denied.

30(b)(6) Deposition of Floyd Calhoun Dent, III (Dkt. No. 761-4)

Government's
Designation
Pg. 86, Ln. 14 Pg. 87, Ln. 23

Pg. 110, Ln. 15 Pg. 111 , Ln. 7

Pg. 143 , Ln. 25 Pg. 145, Ln. 9

Pg. 172, Ln. 23 Pg. 173, Ln. 5

Defendants' Objections
Description of an old office
building as looking like "an old
crack shack" has no probative
value, is confusing and wastes time
and is unfairly prejudicial.
No objection, but Government
objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 111 , Ln. 8-19] for
being beyond the scope of the
designation and that deponent' s
answers are non-responsive.
Objection to profits and revenues
of BlueWave has received court
ruling, but defendants preserve and
do not waive the objection.
No objection, but Government
objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg.173 , Ln. 6 - 174,
Ln. 9] for being beyond the scope
of the designation and that
deponent' s answers are nonresponsive.

-3-

Ruling
Objection is sustained because
prejudice outweighs probative
value.

Government' s objection to
counter-designation is denied.

Objection denied as already ruled
in Order on Motion in Limine,
Dkt. No. 727 at 10-11.
Government' s objection to
counter-designation is denied.

Pg. 185, Ln. 24 Pg. 186,Ln. 6

Objection under Rule 602 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence that the
witness is asked about a document
he did not prepare and 1s not
familiar with.

Objection is denied because
witness answered questions
without indicating any lack of
familiarity or knowledge.

Government objects to Defendants' Government' s objection to
counter-designation [Pg. 186, Ln. 7 counter-designation is denied.
- 25] for being beyond the scope of
the designation.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

rgel
United States District Court Judge

December 1, 201 7
Charleston, South Carolina

-4-