Opinion
3:18-CV-01927-JO-MSB
04-18-2021
WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INC., Defendant. PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INC., Counterclaimant, v. WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, INC.; and DOES 1-15 inclusive, Counterdefendants.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP Eric J. Bakewell Hannah L. McMeans Benita S. Yu Emily Horak Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Project Management Institute, Inc. Eric J. Bakewell (SBN 241529) Hannah L. McMeans (SBN 323551) Benita S. Yu (SBN 329195) Emily Horak (SBN 340115) WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Project Management Institute, Inc.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
Eric J. Bakewell
Hannah L. McMeans
Benita S. Yu
Emily Horak
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
Project Management Institute, Inc.
Eric J. Bakewell (SBN 241529)
Hannah L. McMeans (SBN 323551)
Benita S. Yu (SBN 329195)
Emily Horak (SBN 340115)
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
Project Management Institute, Inc.
DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, INC.'S DEPOSITION COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS
Hon. Jinsook Otah, Judge.
Defendant and Counterclaimant Project Management Institute, Inc. (“PMI”) hereby submits its objections to Workplace Technologies Research, Inc.'s (“WTRI”) deposition counter-designations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(B). PMI cites the Federal Rules of Evidence upon which it relies in objecting to WTRI's designations where applicable.
PMI makes the following General Objections to WTRI's deposition counterdesignations in addition to the specific objections made herein:
• PMI objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 to WTRI's inclusion of attorney colloquy in its counter-designations as Counsel's testimony is irrelevant, prejudicial, needlessly confusing, and misleading to a jury.
• PMI objects to the use of counter-designations as “beyond the scope” where WTRI's questions and/or a witness's response are outside the scope of the deposition topics for which the witness was designated as a corporate representative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).
• PMI objects to the use of deposition designations to the extent those designations are submitted in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 regarding the use of depositions in court proceedings.
• PMI objects to WTRI's cumulative application of one counterdesignation to multiple designations as playing a counter-designation multiple times for the jury is irrelevant, confuses the jury, needlessly presents cumulative evidence, and wastes time in violation of Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.
PMI notes that the applicability of certain objections (including, but not limited to, objections based on relevance and hearsay) ultimately may depend on the context and purpose for which a designation is used by WTRI at trial. PMI reserves the right to withdraw its objections or assert additional objections to WTRI's counter-designations at the time that WTRI's intended usage of such designations becomes clear.
PMI also reserves its rights to: (1) offer any of WTRI's deposition counterdesignations even if not offered by WTRI; and (2) revise its list of objections and counter-designations (including by supplementing or amending its objections or counter-designations) as appropriate especially to the extent that WTRI withdraws or modifies any of its designations, the Court sustains any of PMI's objections to WTRI's counter-designations, the Court makes other rulings that impact the issues to be tried and the evidence that is admissible, and/or the parties reach any agreements impacting the necessity of certain testimony and other evidence.
Additionally, PMI is separately objecting to exhibits included on WTRI's Trial Exhibit List concurrently filed. PMI reserves the right to revise its deposition counter-designation objections and counter-designations to the extent that they are impacted by the resolution of PMI's objections to WTRI's exhibits.
DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, INC.'S EXHIBIT LIST
Defendant and Counterclaimant Project Management Institute, Inc. (“PMI”) hereby submits its objections to the materials listed in Workplace Technologies Research, Inc.'s (“WTRI”) exhibit list pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(B). PMI cites the Federal Rules of Evidence upon which it relies in objecting to WTRI's exhibits where applicable.
PMI makes the following General Objections to WTRI's exhibits in addition to the specific objections made herein:
• PMI objects that WTRI's exhibit list does not demonstrate a goodfaith effort to engage in the pretrial disclosures process mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(B). WTRI provided vague and non-descript labels for numerous exhibits in their exhibit list - using descriptions such as “spreadsheet, ” “C7, ” and “972.MPP.” These are not proper descriptions that describe the document WTRI expects or may offer at trial.
• PMI objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 to WTRI's inclusion of expert witness reports and/or the materials cited in expert reports to the extent those reports and the materials cited therein are the subject of PMI's pending Daubert motion (ECF No. 262). Any materials associated with an expert whose testimony is stricken pursuant to PMI's Daubert motion should be excluded as irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing, and misleading to a jury.
• PMI objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 to WTRI's inclusion of exhibits that are the subject of PMI's pending motions in limine (ECF Nos. 258-260, 266, 269-270, 274-275, 282). Any materials excluded by the Court's ruling on PMI's motions in limine should be excluded as irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing, and misleading to a jury.
• PMI does not object as a general matter to the inclusion of discovery response documents on WTRI's exhibit list, but PMI reserves its rights with respect to: (1) objecting to specific portions of the discovery responses that WTRI attempts to use at trial: and (2) the objections already contained in the discovery
responses. Additionally, the Court's willingness (or lack thereof) to allow the parties to introduce into evidence written discovery responses and/or objections to discovery responses should apply reciprocally to both parties.
• PMI objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 to materials pertaining to the legitimacy of PMI's processes of collecting and producing evidence in discovery including, but not limited to, PMI's document retention policies and communications regarding the search terms PMI used internally to collect documents. These documents are irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing, and misleading to a jury as discovery is long over and WTRI's ample opportunity to move to compel further evidence from PMI or bring discovery issues to the Court's attention has long since passed.
• PMI objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 to duplicate exhibits on WTRI's exhibit list as presentation of identical exhibits constitutes needless presentation of cumulative evidence and wastes time.
• PMI objects under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 to all exhibits on WTRI's list that contain redactions as WTRI has failed to justify or substantiate its redactions and such redacted material cannot be authenticated or verified.
• The exhibit lists filed with the Court at this stage of litigation do not identify sponsoring witnesses, but PMI reserves its right to object to all exhibits that WTRI cannot properly authenticate per Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
• PMI objects under Federal Rule of Evidence 802 to all exhibits containing hearsay. However, it is not clear at this juncture how WTRI intends to introduce or use certain exhibits making it difficult to evaluate whether the exhibits are hearsay and/or whether a hearsay exception applies. Therefore, PMI reserves the right to add or withdraw objections on the basis of hearsay: (1) at the time that WTRI attempts to admit an exhibit into evidence; or (2) at such other time as WTRI's intended usage of an exhibit becomes clear. PMI also retains the right to add or withdraw objections on the basis of hearsay based upon any mutually
agreeable understandings reached by the parties or ruling of the Court about how to apply hearsay rules in this case.
PMI further notes that the applicability of certain objections (including, but not limited to, objections based on relevance and hearsay) ultimately may depend on the context and purpose for which an exhibit is used by WTRI at trial. PMI reserves the right to withdraw its objections or assert additional objections to WTRI's exhibits: (1) at the time that WTRI attempts to admit an exhibit into evidence; or (2) at such other time as WTRI's intended usage of an exhibit becomes clear.
PMI also reserves its rights to: (1) offer any of WTRI's exhibits even if not offered by WTRI; and (2) revise its list of objections (including by supplementing or amending its objections) as appropriate especially to the extent that WTRI withdraws or modifies any of its exhibits, the Court sustains any of PMI's objections to WTRI's exhibits, the Court sustains any of WTRI's objections to PMI's exhibits, the Court makes other rulings that impact the issues to be tried and the evidence that is admissible, and/or the parties reach any agreements impacting the necessity of certain testimony and other evidence.
Additionally, PMI is separately objecting to exhibits included in WTRI's Deposition Designations concurrently filed. PMI reserves the right to revise its objections to WTRI's exhibits to the extent that they are impacted by the resolution of PMI's objections to WTRI's Deposition Designations.