GQ Sand, LLC v. Conley Bulk Services, LLC et al

Filing 272

ORDER on deposition designations. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 06/24/2016. (mfh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
GQ SAND, LLC,

v.

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,

ORDER
15-cv-152-wmc

CONLEY BULK SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff and Crossclaim Defendant ,
RANGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, and
Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff,
and
NEJGID, LLC,
Defendant and Counterclaim/Crossclaim Plaintiff.
Having reviewed the parties’ deposition designations, objections and counterdesignations and objections to counter-designations, the court issues the following rulings
as to the parties’ objections to witnesses Scott Hohensee and Robert Schenken and
defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s designations of witness Carl Hudspeth. 1 The approved
designations may be presented to the jury unless the witness is available to testify in
person. The party proposing the testimony shall remove all objections and any other
asides or discussions between counsel and/or with the court reporter, even where not
noted by the court in its rulings.

The court awaits plaintiff’s filing of amended objections to defendants’ designations of witness
Carl Hudspeth.

1

I. Plaintiff’s Designations
A. Scott Hohensee

GQ Sand
Designation

19:15-21:1

25:5
-26:6

Defendants'
Objections

Calls for
speculation

Defendants'
Counterdesignation

21:2-13

Calls for
speculation

48:3-49:7

Calls for
speculation

49:15-18, 2225

Calls for
speculation

GQ Sand's
Response/Objections
Question was
looking for an
estimate not exact
number; no
objection to addition
of
counterdesignation if
original designation
allowed
Actually document
references phone
call asked about;
refreshed
recollection
He is identifying
crush values from
sand tests with
documents in front
of him - no
speculation
No speculation - if
had additional
product

Ruling
Overruled.

Sustained as
to 25:5-19;
otherwise
overruled.
Overruled.

Sustained.

B. Robert Schenken

GQ Sand
Designation

65:10-13

Defendants'
Objections

Defendants'
Counterdesignation

65:14-66:11

2

GQ Sand's
Ruling
Response/Objections
Relevance, doesn't
Overruled.
remember if specific
order and normal
course of business is
irrelevant

C. Carl Hudspeth

GQ Sand
Designation

Defendants'
Objections

64:8-65:9

121:20-23

124:3-125:7

Defendants'
Counterdesignation

GQ Sand's
Objections
Objection as to
81:12-15; 81:22-25; Court's ruling on
82:1-9
Prior/Other Acts
Objection as to
89:10-11; 90:6-16; Court's ruling on
91:15-21
Prior/Other Acts
Objection as to
Court's ruling on
116:18-117:6
Prior/Other Acts

135:4-7, 1225

136:25-137:10

167:1-9

167:19-168:2;
173:5-15

Hearsay
Objection as to
Court's ruling on
Prior/Other Acts

180:2-13

Relevance 401, does
not matter what he
doesn't know

180:14-181:4

Ruling
Sustained.

Sustained.

Sustained.

Counterdesignation
withdrawn.
Sustained.

Counterdesignation
withdrawn.

II. Defendants’ Designations
A. Robert Schenken

Conley Bulk
Services,
LLC’s
Designations
7:16-8:1

GQ Sand, LLC’s
Objections

Conley Bulk
Services LLC’s
CounterDesignations

Relevance

GQ Sand, LLC’s
Objections

8:13-9:18

Relevance of
8:13-19

19:21-20:1

Relevance of
work history

21:22-22:1

Completeness

22:2-6

This is the witness’
name.
This is relevant,
because it provides
background on the
witness.
Mr. Schenken’s
work history
provides context for
the jury, which is
relevant.
No objection.

61:23-62-2

Completeness

Add, 60:14-18,

No objection.

3

Ruling
Overruled.
Overruled.

Overruled.

Sustained;
add 22:2-6.
Sustained;

Conley Bulk
Services,
LLC’s
Designations

64:17-67:18

83:2-84:2
89:1-90:2

92:19-93:13

Conley Bulk
GQ Sand, LLC’s
Services LLC’s
Objections
CounterDesignations
61:9-20
Foundation;
64:24-66:4
doesn’t recall if
GQ Sand ordered
specific crush
value, sales order
“probably” would
state out of the
norm
Completeness

GQ Sand, LLC’s
Objections

This is not an issue
of foundation. The
jury can infer from
Mr. Schenken’s
testimony his
credibility.

Add 84:3-13

Relevance;
duplicative 89:2190:2, see
designation
32:12-33:7 and
objection above
93:8-13 is
Hearsay
“ownership said”

No objection.
This testimony is
directing the witness
to a certain topic.

Mr. Schenken was
testifying on behalf
of WWS; this is not
hearsay.

Ruling
add 60:1418, 61:9-20.
Withdrawn.

Sustained;
add 84:3-13.
Sustained as
to 89:1-3,
89:21-90:2;
otherwise
overruled.
Overruled.

Entered this 24th day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4