Johnson v. C R Bard Incorporated et al

Filing 270

ORDER on Deposition Designations as to Abithal Raji-Kubba. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/5/2021. (nks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NATALIE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
19-cv-760-wmc
C.R. BARD INC. and
BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR INC.,
Defendants.

Before the court is the parties’ request for ruling on objections to certain deposition
designations as to Abithal Raji-Kubba.
DEPONENT PL AFFIRM

DEF
OBJECTIONS

PL RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

Bard objects to
Plaintiff’s references
to “Admitted in the
Peterson case” as a
basis for allowing a
designation to played,
or overruling an
objection, and submits
that the testimony
should be consider
based on the facts and
applicable law and
rulings in this case.
The Peterson case
involved a different
filter, different claims,
and was decided
under different state
law.

1

COURT
RULING

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

9:07-9:10

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

14:01-14:13

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

75:09-77:03

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

77:13-77:14

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

78:13-79:05

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

79:17-79:24

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

80:02-80:04

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

80:08-80:13

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

98:03-98:08

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

115:01115:09

Cumulative of
testimony of several
witnesses

2

Admitted in Peterson
The defendants have not
identified the witnesses or
testimony thebase this
objection upon. The
testimony is not needlessly
presenting cumulative
evidence.

OVERRULED

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

115:13115:18

Cumulative of
testimony of several
witnesses

Admitted in Peterson
The defendants have not
identified the witnesses or
testimony thebase this
objection upon. The
testimony is not needlessly
presenting cumulative
evidence.

OVERRULED

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

116:02117:14

Cumulative of
testimony of several
witnesses

Admitted in Peterson
The defendants have not
identified the witnesses or
testimony thebase this
objection upon. The
testimony is not needlessly
presenting cumulative
evidence.

OVERRULED

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

117:16117:21

Cumulative of
testimony of several
witnesses

Admitted in Peterson
The defendants have not
identified the witnesses or
testimony thebase this
objection upon. The
testimony is not needlessly
presenting cumulative
evidence.

OVERRULED

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

129:14130:07

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

131:23132:11

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

160:04160:06

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

161:22161:23

Admitted in Peterson

Admitted in Peterson

Cumulative of
testimony of several
witnesses

3

Admitted in Peterson
The defendants have not
identified the witnesses or
testimony thebase this
objection upon. The
testimony is not needlessly
presenting cumulative
evidence.

OVERRULED

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

162:02162:11

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

162:16163:03

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

167:11168:02

Admitted in Peterson

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

204:12204:21

Rules 401, 402 and
403. Relates to
Recovery filter only.

Admitted in Peterson
The witness was a recipient
of the document and her
testimony establishes her
knowledge of the subject
matter therein.

SUSTAIN

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

204:25205:19

Rules 401, 402 and
403. Relates to
Recovery filter only.

Admitted in Peterson
The witness was a recipient
of the document and her
testimony establishes her
knowledge of the subject
matter therein.

SUSTAIN

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

205:21206:04

Rules 401, 402 and
403. Relates to
Recovery filter only.

Admitted in Peterson
The witness was a recipient
of the document and her
testimony establishes her
knowledge of the subject
matter therein.

SUSTAIN

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

227:20227:23

Admitted in Peterson

Beginging
with "Was"

DEPONENT DEF
COUNTER
Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

PL OBJECTIONS

FRE 106 only requires
18:10-20:08
completeness that "in
For
Completeness fairness ought to be
considered at the

4

DEF RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

COURT
RULING

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective

OVERRULED

same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

77:15-78:12

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

79:06-79:16

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

89:13-89:15

For
Completeness

For
Completeness

For
Completeness

designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.

FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

FRE 602; calls for
speculation
FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or

SUSTAIN

5

name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

115:10115:12
For
Completeness

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

115:19116:01
For
Completeness

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

117:22118:05
For
Completeness

document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.

FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Non-responsive
FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.
Moreover, designated

OVERRULED

6

testimony is directly
responsive and attempts to
explain witness' answer to
counsel's question regarding
whether electropolishing
makes the surface safer.

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

168:09168:12
For
Completeness

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

169:16170:03
For
Completeness

FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Hearsay;FRE 602
FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.
Testimony does not
reference any out of court
statement and even if it did,
in this context, any such
statement would not be
offered to prove the truth of
the matter asserted.

OVERRULED

7

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

174:16176:12
For
Completeness

Non-responsive
FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge. This
testimony also is responsive
to the question, and
attempts to provide a robust
answer to Plaintiff's counsel's
attempt to characterize the
contents of a document.

OVERRULED

Raji-Kubba,
Abithal
07/18/2016

178:02178:10

FRE 106 only requires
completeness that "in
fairness ought to be
considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demostrated why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness, must
be considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's designation.

This testimony is necessary
to provide a complete picture
of the witness' background,
place Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines of
questioning in proper
context, and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is attempting to
elicit testimony from a
witness about a subject or
document with which that
witness has no or limited
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

For
Completeness

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ request for rulings on objections to certain
designations is GRANTED, and the objections are sustained in part and overruled in part as
provided above.
Entered this 5th day of June, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
8

__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

9