From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Aug 16, 2007
Case No. 1:06-CV-00026 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. 1:06-CV-00026.

August 16, 2007


ORDER


In its March 15, 2007 memorandum and order [Docket No. 74], the court determined that certain portions of the deposition transcripts of Donald Rhodes, William Takala and Joseph Epperson be redacted as expert or opinion testimony. Defendant Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. ("Teledyne") filed objections to the court's designated redactions as well as an objection to a portion of the videotaped deposition of Dr. Michael Eppig [Docket No. 79]. Now that the objections have been briefed, the court reaffirms its redaction of 36:6-37:10 of Mr. Epperson's deposition as expert or opinion testimony, and further orders redaction of 69:2-70:2 of Mr. Epperson's deposition as it states a legal conclusion. With respect to the deposition of Dr. Eppig, the court finds that the testimony at 31:17-34:8 should not be redacted and is relevant and admissible at trial, despite the court's exclusion of certain damages in both its November 9, 2006 memorandum and order [Docket No. 48] and its March 15, 2007 memorandum and order [Docket No. 74].

The page and line listings are in the following format: 1:3-4 refers to page 1, lines 3 through 4; 1:3-2:6 refers to page 1, line 3 through page 2, line 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Brown v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Aug 16, 2007
Case No. 1:06-CV-00026 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2007)
Case details for

Brown v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Aug 16, 2007

Citations

Case No. 1:06-CV-00026 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2007)