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
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?