AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC
Filing
306
NOTICE by AdvanceMe Inc regarding AdvanceMe's Objections to Defendants' Deposition Counter-Designations (Bhakar, Vid)
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?