Opinion
13-CV-05238 TSH
04-15-2024
JOHN PATRICK HENNEBERRY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWARK, et al., Defendants.
HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP DANIELLE K. LEWIS SUZANNE E. RISCHMAN Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF NEWARK and KARL FREDSTROM
HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP
DANIELLE K. LEWIS
SUZANNE E. RISCHMAN Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF NEWARK and KARL FREDSTROM
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS OF TRIAL TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL ALLUM
Thomas A. Hixson, Judge
Defendants City of Newark and Karl Fredstrom hereby submit the following responses to Plaintiff's objections to Defendants' counter-designations of Michael Allum's trial testimony.
Defendants' Counter -Designation
Plaintiff's Responses
Defendants' Responses
Ruling
310:17 - 311:16
Relevance Assumes facts not in evidence.
This designation meets the threshold for evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without
[ ] Sustained [√] Overruled [ ] Obj.W/D [ ] Desig.W/D
Defendants' Counter -Designation
Plaintiff's Responses
Defendants' Responses
Ruling
that evidence. FRE 401. This testimony goes to the witness' knowledge of the Defendant and his role at Newark Police Department. Also goes to the witness' credibility.
313:3-21
Relevance Speculation Lack of personal knowledge Assumes facts not in evidence
This designation meets the threshold for evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without that evidence. FRE 401. Plaintiff's designations put Mr. Allum's interactions with Sergeant Arguello at issue. This designation relates to Mr. Allum's relationship with Sergeant Arguello, and to Mr. Allum's knowledge of the matters in which he previously testified to. He has personal knowledge and firsthand experience on this topic which qualifies him to answer the question. FRE 602.
[ ] Sustained [√] Overruled [ ] Obj.W/D [ ] Desig.W/D
314:3 - 316:8
Vague Relevance Assumes facts not in evidence.
This testimony meets the threshold for evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without that evidence. FRE 401. Plaintiff's designations reference Mr. Allum's knowledge of police work and contend he is qualified to provide testimony. This testimony shows Mr. Allum's job
[ ] Sustained [√] Overruled [ ] Obj.W/D [ ] Desig.W/D
Defendants' Counter -Designation
Plaintiff's Responses
Defendants' Responses
Ruling
duties included the matters he is providing testimony on, including his personal experience with arrests, citizen complaints. booking, officer discretion, following orders.
316:19 - 321:11
Relevance Assumes facts not in evidence. Speculation -320:2-6
This testimony meets the threshold for evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without that evidence. FRE 401. Plaintiff's designations reference Mr. Allum's knowledge of police work and contend he is qualified to provide testimony. This testimony shows Mr. Allum's job duties included the matters he is providing testimony on, including his personal experience with arrests, transportation of arrestees, booking process, chain of command.
[ ] Sustained [√] Overruled [ ] Obj.W/D [ ] Desig.W/D
331:3-5
Speculation Lack of personal knowledge
Mr. Allum is speaking from his own personal knowledge. Therefore, this meets the requirements of FRE 602.
[ ] Sustained [√] Overruled [ ] Obj.W/D [ ] Desig.W/D
333:22-336:4
Argumentative Relevance Assumes facts not in evidence. Speculation.
This testimony meets the threshold for evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without that evidence. FRE 401. Here, Mr. Allum's testimony is related to his conversation in which he is testifying to. Therefore, these questions are directly related to the substance
[ ] Sustained [√] Overruled [ ] Obj.W/D [ ] Desig.W/D
Defendants' Counter -Designation
Plaintiff's Responses
Defendants' Responses
Ruling
of his testimony for his interaction with Defendant Fredstrom. He is also speaking from his own firsthand knowledge, which meets the requirements of FRE 602.
IT IS SO ORDERED.