Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Decker v. I.E. Miller Services, Inc.

United States District Court, D. North Dakota

February 8, 2018

Scot Decker, Plaintiff,
v.
I.E. Miller Services, Inc., et. al Defendants Party Designation Objection Ruling Allowed

          CHRISTOPHER NIXON DEPOSITION RULINGS

          CHARLES S. MILLER, JR., MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         The following are the court's rulings with respect to the designations and objections by the parties for the presentation of the deposition testimony of the above-named witness.

Party
Designation
Objection
Ruling
Allowed
P
5/21-6/4

5/21-6/4

D
*5/22-5/24
P
7/21-9/18

7/21-9/18

D
*7/21-9/15
P
9/22-10/8

9/22-10/8

D
*9/22-10/1
P
10/20-10/25

10/20-10/25

D
11/6-12/12

Pl objection 11/6-12/12 for lack of relevancy and suggests unsafe conduct Cyclone

Sustained for lack of relevancy

D
12/23-13/11

Pl objection 12/23-13/9 for lack of relevancy and reference to another accident

Sustained for lack of relevancy and other accident that is subject to motion in limine rulings

P
*13/12-13/22

13/12-13/22

D
14/5-16/5

P objects to 15/4-16/5 for lack of relevancy

Sustained

14/5-15/2 15/24-16/5

P
*14/5-15/23

Inconsistent with objection for part

P
17/3-17-5

17/3-17-5

D
17/24-19/25

Pl objection lack of relevancy, lack of foundation, violation of Rule 404

Overruled

17/24-19/25

P
20/15-21/14

P withdraws re ruling motion in limine

P
21/23-21/25

P withdraws re ruling motion in limine

D
22/11-23/8

P objects lack of foundation and relevancy and improper character evidence

Overruled

22/11-23/8

D
25/11-26/4

P objects 25/20-26/4 re ruling on motion in limine

Sustained

D
26/19-27/24

Pl objects lack of relevance and foundation, improper character evidence, speculation

Sustained

P
27/25-28/17

27/25-28/17

D
28/22-29/7

Pl objects lack of relevancy and foundation

Sustained

P
29/8-29/14

29/8-29/14

P
30/8-30/22

30/8-30/22

P
31/3-31/13

31/3-31/13

P
31/18-32/20

P withdraws

P
33/15-33/19

P withdraws

P
35/16-37/6
P
37/19-38/5
D
40/13-47/13

P objects at 42/16 for lack of foundation

Overruled

40/13-47/13

P
*42/20-43/7
P
*43/24-45/6
P
*45/9-45/18
P
47/14-47/16

47/14-47/16

D
48/22-49/24

48/22-49/24

P
*49/1-49/13
P
*49/17-50/9

49/25-50/9

D
50/16-53/22

P objects to portions as hearsay

Sustained

50/16-51/20 52/13-52/24

P
*50/16-51/10
P
*51/21-52/12
P
*52/20-52/24
P
53/24-54/5

P withdraws

D
54/6-54/14

54/3-54/14

P
54/15-55/21

54/15-55/21

D
55/22-55/24

55/22-55/24

P
55/25-56/12

D objects to 56/10-56/12 as speculation

Overruled because witness testified not certain but that was he thought based on observations - but play the question and answer at 56/13-56/14

55/25-56/12 56/13-56/14

P
56/15-57/2

D objects based on lack of personal knowledge and speculation

Overruled witness states saw connection fairly

contemporaneous to accident and remainder layperson observation that it would not have changed

56/15-57/2

P
57/6-57/10

57/6-57/10

D
57/11-58/3

P objects for lack of foundation and relevancy and speculation

Overruled but need to complete answer

57/11-58/12

P
58/2-58/24

58/2-58/24

D
*58/21-59/8

P objects for lack of foundation and relevancy and speculation

Overruled; also fair to complete testimony being offered by pl next; opened door b other trial testimony offered

P
59/9-59/25

59/9-59/25

D
60/12-60/20

60/12-60/20

P
63/6-63/15

63/6-63/15

D
63/20-64/3

P objects lack of foundation, hearsay, and speculation

Overruled; also open door based on other questions of P counsel

63/20-64/3

P
64/7-64/18

D objects based on speculation, not responsive, and untimely designation

Sustained in part lack of personal knowledge

64/15-64/18

P
65/1-65/19

65/1-65/19

D
65/20-68/2

P objects lack of foundation, hearsay, and speculation, and hearsay

Overruled; also open door based on other questions of P counsel

65/20-68/2

P
68/6-68/17

D objects based on not responsive to question, speculation, and lack of relevancy

Overruled but need to play 68/18-68/22 for context and for next designation

68/6-68/17

P
68/23-69/5

See above

68/18-69/5

D
69/6-70/17

P objects based on lack of foundation, hearsay, and improper character evidence

Overruled

69/6-70/17

D
72/4-73/19

P objects based on lack of foundation, hearsay, and improper character evidence

Sustained based on ruling on motion in limine re other accident evidence

D
74/23-76/1

Same as above

Sustained as above

P
77/2-77/14

77/2-77/14

D
78/5-80/21

78/5-80/21

P
81/7-81/12

D objects as taken out-of-context and relevancy

Overruled

81/7-81/12

P
81/22-82/6

Same as above

Overruled

81/22-82/6

P
82/22-82/23

Objection - improper opinion, speculation, and lack of personal knowledge

Sustained

P
82/25-83/10

Same as above

Sustained

P
83/15-83/23

83/15-83/23

P
84/14-84/25

84/14-84/25

P
85/3-88/15

85/3-88/15

P
88/17-89/7

88/17-89/7

P
91/1-94/17

D objects based on vagueness, non-responsive, lack of personal knowledge, and speculation

Sustained in part re lack of foundation and exceeds proper lay witness testimony about what crane operators and supervisors should have done and in part repetitive

P
94/19-95/25

Sustained repetitive

         IT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.