AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC

Filing 306

NOTICE by AdvanceMe Inc regarding AdvanceMe's Objections to Defendants' Deposition Counter-Designations (Bhakar, Vid)

Download PDF
AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC Doc. 306 Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ADVANCEME, INC., Plaintiff, v. RAPIDPAY LLC, FIRST FUNDS LLC, MERCHANT MONEY TREE, INC., REACH FINANCIAL, LLC, and FAST TRANSACT, INC. d/b/a SIMPLE CASH, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § CASE NO. 6:05-CV-424 LED­JDL PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS Plaintiff AdvanceMe, Inc. ("AdvanceMe") hereby submits its objections to Defendants First Funds, LLC's, Merchant Money Tree, Inc.'s and Reach Financial, LLC's (collectively, "Defendants") June 19, 2007 Deposition Counter-Designations. PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Dockets.Justia.com Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 2 of 17 ADVANCEME'S OBJECTION KEY CODE 106 OBJECTION Incomplete. This testimony is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it (see Fed. R. Evid. 106). 402 Relevance. This testimony is objectionable because it is not relevant (see Fed. R. Evid. 402). 403 Misleading/Confusion of Issues/Waste of Time. This testimony is objectionable because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence (see Fed. R. Evid. 403). 408 Compromise and Offer to Compromise. This testimony is objectionable because it relates to offers to compromise and/or settlement negotiations (see Fed. R. Evid. 408). 602 Personal Knowledge. This testimony is objectionable because it constitutes testimony on a matter as to which the witness lacks personal knowledge (see Fed. R. Evid. 602). 611 Vague and Ambiguous, Argumentative, Harassment, Undue Embarrassment, Leading. This testimony is objectionable because it is vague and ambiguous, argumentative, constitutes harassment or is unduly embarrassing to the witness, or the question is leading (see Fed. R. Evid. 611). PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -2- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 3 of 17 CODE 701 OBJECTION Lay Opinion/Legal Conclusion. This testimony is objectionable because it is opinion testimony by a lay witness that is not reasonably based on perception and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in dispute (see Fed. R. Evid. 701). 801 Hearsay. This testimony is objectionable because it is a statement made by one other than the declarant while testifying at trial, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and not subject to any hearsay exception (see Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 802). 901 Authentication. This testimony is objectionable because the evidence referred to therein has not been properly authenticated (see Fed. R. Evid. 901). 10011004 Best Evidence. This testimony is objectionable because it is vague and ambiguous as to whether the witness is summarizing its own independent understandings or the contents of a document. If the latter, attempt to prove content of a document with secondary evidence (see Fed. R. Evid. 1001-1004). A/C AA AF B Privilege. Attorney Client Privilege and/or Work Product Immunity Asked and Answered This testimony is objectionable because it assumes a fact not in evidence. Bolstering. This testimony in objectionable because it is improper to bolster the credibility of a witness before credibility is attacked (see Fed. R. Evid. 608(a)). CQ CS Compound Question Calls for Speculation PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -3- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 4 of 17 CODE E OBJECTION This testimony is objectionable because it constitutes attempted expert testimony from a person who was not designated as an expert and who did not submit an expert report (see F.R.C.P. 26). F IA IC This testimony is objectionable because it lacks foundation. This testimony is objectionable because it is an incomplete answer. This testimony is objectionable because it has characterized a person or conduct with unwarranted suggestive, argumentative, or impertinent language (see Fed. R. Evid. 404-405). IE IQ MC N NR OS Improper opinion testimony by expert witness (see Fed. R. Evid. 702) This testimony is objectionable because it is an incomplete question. Mischaracterizes witness' testimony Calls for narrative Nonresponsive Outside the scope of Rule 30(b)(6) topics PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -4- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 5 of 17 DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM J. BENEDICT, JR., February 8, 2007 Defendants' CounterDesignations [10:16] - [11:8] [19:20] - [20:11] [20:17] - [21:7] [35:8] - [35:10] [43:19] - [43:22] [75:24] - [76:1] [97:15] - [97:19] [98:18] - [98:20] [105:8] - [105:16] [168:19] - [168:25] [176:22] - [176:24] [179:2] - [179:4] [183:24] - [184:4] [184:10] - [184:13] [185:22] - [186:23] [187:9] - [187:15] [202:17] - [202:22] [203:17] - [203:19] [203:25] - [204:3] [204:9] - [204:18] 402, NR 402, 403, 602,611,701, NR 402, 403, 611, NR 402, 403, 602,611,701, NR 402, 403, 602,611,701, NR 402 402 402, NR 402 602, 1001-1004, CS 106, 602, CS AdvanceMe's Objections 402 PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -5- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 6 of 17 Defendants' CounterDesignations [204:23] - [205:10] [205:15] - [205:22] AdvanceMe's Objections 402, 403, 611, NR 402, 403, 611, 701 PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -6- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 7 of 17 DEPOSITION OF JENNIFER L. CARTER, February 27, 2007 Defendants' CounterDesignations [8:6] - [8:10] [11:20] - [11:22] [13:11] - [13:13] [13:21] - [13:23] [33:15] - [33:20] [37:23] - [38:6] [41:4] - [41:7] [43:17] - [43:24] [53:21] - [54:10] [55:3] - [55:11] [56:1] - [56:11] 402, 403 106, 402 402, 403, 701 402, 403, 701 AdvanceMe's Objections PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -7- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 8 of 17 DEPOSITION OF CORTES DERUSSY (FIRST FUNDS), March 1, 2007 Defendants' CounterDesignations [55:22] - [56:10] [58:13] - [58:14] [58:20] - [59:2] [59:12] - [59:17] [79:8] - [79:11] [79:13] - [79:19] [83:10] - [83:13] [90:12] - [90:14] [90:24] - [91:3] [95:9] - [95:11] [95:15] - [95:17] AdvanceMe's Objections PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -8- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 9 of 17 DEPOSITION OF CORTES E. DERUSSY (NORTHERN LEASING), April 23, 2007 Defendants' CounterDesignations [58:15] - [58:23] [59:7] - [59:11] [63:15] - [63:19] [78:4] - [80:23] [178:13] - [179:16] [207:5] [207:7] - [207:14] [234:10] - [235:7] [249:11] - [249:16] [277:5] - [277:6] [277:8] - [277:10] [277:13] - [277:15] 602 403, 701, NR 403 402, 403, MC 402, NR 403, NR AdvanceMe's Objections PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -9- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 10 of 17 DEPOSITION OF RUTH ELASRI, February 22, 2007 Defendants' CounterDesignations [39:24] - [40:4] [40:6] - [40:9] [41:7] - [41:8] [41:13] - [41:21] [51:7] - [51:9] [57:10] - [57:12] [74:7] - [74:14] [80:19] - [80:21] [81:13] - [81:15] [84:3] - [84:7] [91:17] - [92:10] [96:11] - [96:25] [110:3] - [110:9] [111:19] - [111:23] [111:25] - [112:8] [116:5] - [116:6] [116:8] - [116:9] [124:8] - [125:5] 402, 403, 602, 611, CS, F 402, 403, 602, 611, CS, F 402, 403, NR 402, 403, NR 402, 403, 1001-1004 402, 403, 602, 611, CS 402, 611, 1001-1004 402, 611, 1001-1004 AdvanceMe's Objections PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -10- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 11 of 17 DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM HERRING JACKSON, January 23, 2007 Defendants' CounterDesignations [10:22] - [10:25] [20:1] [22:13] - [22:16] [24:3] - [24:4] [39:5] [39:8] [64:17] - [64:23] [67:22] - [68:2] [68:4] - [68:6] [70:7] - [70:10] [75:16] - [75:19] [103:16] - [103:21] [119:7] - [119:10] [147:19] - [147:21] [149:11] - [150:1] 402, 403 402, 403 602, CS 402, 403 AdvanceMe's Objections 402, 403 PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -11- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 12 of 17 DEPOSITION OF DANIAL LOTT, February 26, 2007 Defendants' CounterDesignations [47:21] - [48:17] [62:10] - [62:11] [69:10] - [69:11] [69:14] - [69:15] [69:18] [110:22] 402, 403, NR AdvanceMe's Objections 403 PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -12- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 13 of 17 DEPOSITION OF ANTHONY S. MALEY, February 28, 2007 Defendants' CounterDesignations [15:25] - [16:19] [16:24] - [17:24] [28:22] - [29:1] [30:14] - [30:18] [32:25] - [33:10] [38:8] - [38:21] [38:25] - [39:4] [44:25] - [45:3] [56:17] - [56:24] [65:1] - [65:7] [66:24] - [67:9] [67:20] - [68:3] 402, NR 402, NR 402, 403, NR AdvanceMe's Objections PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -13- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 14 of 17 DEPOSITION OF DAVID TALBERT, November 10, 2006 Defendants' CounterDesignations [15:24] [16:1] - [16:19] [45:11] - [45:19] [48:22] - [49:6] [71:22] - [71:24] [97:9] - [97:10] [105:12] - [105:15] [139:4] [177:19] - [177:22] [177:24] 402, 403, B AdvanceMe's Objections 402, 403, B PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -14- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 15 of 17 DEPOSITION OF ANTHONY LEROY WILDEN, February 20, 2007 Defendants' CounterDesignations [11:9] - [11:12] [14:14] - [14:21] [36:13] - [37:3] [41:3] - [41:25] [42:22] - [42:23] [49:15] - [49:23] [56:1] [56:8] [60:7] - [60:21] [61:7] - [61:11] Dated: June 26, 2007 402 402, 403 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Vidya R. Bhakar AdvanceMe's Objections 402, NR PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP Ronald S. Lemieux (ronlemieux@paulhastings.com) (CA Bar No. 120822) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Michael N. Edelman (michaeledelman@paulhastings.com) (CA Bar No. 180948) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Vidya R. Bhakar (vidbhakar@paulhastings.com) (CA Bar No. 220210) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Robert C. Matz (robertmatz@paulhastings.com) (CA Bar No. 217822) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Shanée Y. Williams (shaneewilliams@paulhastings.com) (CA Bar No. 221310) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Five Palo Alto Square, Sixth Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Telephone: (650) 320-1800 Telecopier: (650) 320-1900 PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL -15- Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 16 of 17 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. Otis W. Carroll, Attorney-in-Charge State Bar No. 03895700 Deborah Race State Bar No. 16448700 6101 South Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: 903-561-1600 Facsimile: 903-581-1071 Email: fedserv@icklaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC. PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -16- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document 306 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 17 of 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are being served a copy of this document via the court's CM/ECF system pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this the 26th day of June, 2007 By /s/ Vidya R. Bhakar Vidya R. Bhakar LEGAL_US_W # 56526409.1 PLAINTIFF ADVANCEME, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER DESIGNATIONS -17- CASE NO.6:05-CV-424 LED-JDL

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?