Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01813-PAB-BNB
05-30-2012
LEICA GEOSYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. L.W.S. LEASING, INC., an Illinois corporation, and L.W. SURVEY ENGINEERING & DESIGN CO., an Illinois corporation, Defendants.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES'
OBJECTIONS TO DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Designations of Deposition Testimony [Docket No. 80] and Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs' Objections to Plaintiff's Designations of Deposition Testimony [Docket No. 101]. The Court has reviewed the parties' objections and responses thereto.
The Court rules as follows on plaintiff's objections [Docket No. 80]: Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of U.S. Helicopter, Inc., Mark Fingerle, April 14, 2011
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions are ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not rationally based on the witness' ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦1 ¦75:19-77:2 ¦perception and are based on specialized ¦Lack of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. ¦foundation.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦702, for which he lacks. Fed. R. Evid. 602, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦701. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Jeremy Hardy, April 20, 2011
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+------------------------------------+-------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦opinions are not rationally based on¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the witness' perception and are ¦ ¦ ¦1 ¦27:3-6 ¦based on specialized knowledge ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦702, for which he lacks. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+------------------------------------+-------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay and lack of foundation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness offers Mr. Vargo's alleged ¦ ¦ ¦2 ¦28:20-29:3 ¦statements for the truth of the ¦Sustained. Hearsay.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦matters asserted but admits he is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not certain of his recollection. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 801(c), 802. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+------------------------------------+-------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay and lack of foundation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness offers Ms. Howard's alleged ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦statements for the truth of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦matter asserted. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness lacks the personal knowledge¦Overruled. Witness ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and expertise to define Ms. Howard's¦has personal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦title. She is not a DER, but an ¦knowledge of ¦ ¦3 ¦30:3-16 ¦administrative DER. Witness' ¦ballpark quote and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦opinions regarding STCs are not ¦Ms. Howard's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦rationally based on the witness' ¦position as he ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦perception and are based on ¦understood it. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦specialized knowledge within the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦which he lacks. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 801(c), 802.¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+------------------------------------+-------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦opinions are not rationally based on¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the witness' perception and are ¦Lines 3-19: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦based on specialized knowledge ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. ¦ ¦ ¦4 ¦32:3-24 ¦702, for which he lacks. He is not ¦Lines 20-24: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦qualified to opine on the subject of¦Sustained. Lack of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦whether the FAA would sanction a ¦foundation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦modification shop under the proposed¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦hypothetical. Fed. R. Evid. 602, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦701. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions are¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not rationally based on the witness' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦perception and are based on specialized ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. ¦Witness was ¦ ¦5 ¦35:25-36:9 ¦Evid. 702, for which he lacks. He is not ¦asked about ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦qualified to opine on the subject of ¦his ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦whether the FAA would "any type of laser ¦understanding.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that wasn't a law enforcement entity." ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay, witness offers Mr. Vargo's ¦ ¦ ¦6 ¦54:18-55:1 ¦alleged statements for the truth of the ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), ¦Hearsay. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦802. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lines 3-6: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay, witnesses offers Mr. Vargo's ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦7 ¦57:3-19 ¦alleged statements for the truth of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), ¦Lines 7-19: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦802. ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay ¦ +--------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦59:18-24: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦59:25-60:5: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay, witness offers Mr. Vargo's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦alleged statements for the truth of the ¦Overruled ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦matter asserted. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦60:6-18: ¦ ¦8 ¦59:18-61:6 ¦Witness lacks foundation to testify as to¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦who Mr. Vargo spoke to, if at all, and ¦Lack of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lacks foundation to describe Mr. Vargo's ¦foundation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦work experience. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 801 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(c), 802. ¦60:19-23: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦60:24-61:6: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay. ¦ +--------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay and lack of foundation, witness ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦offers Mr. Vargo's alleged statements for¦Overruled to ¦ ¦9 ¦62:15-19 ¦the truth of the matter asserted and ¦extent used to¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lacks personal foundation to testify as ¦prove notice. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to what Mr. Vargo was aware of. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 801(c), 802. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+----------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Overruled. Not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay, witness offers Mr. ¦admissible for truth ¦ ¦10 ¦64:7-15 ¦Vargo's alleged statements for the¦of matter asserted, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦truth of the matter asserted. Fed.¦but only for basis of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦R. Evid. 801(c), 802. ¦witness' belief re ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦STC. ¦ +--------+-----------+----------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦64:24-65:1 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay, witness offers Mr. ¦(statements to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Vargo's alleged statements for the¦Vargo): Overruled. ¦ ¦11 ¦64:24-65:2 ¦truth of the matter asserted. Fed.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦R. Evid. 801(c), 802. ¦65:1-2: Overruled, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦but not admissible ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for truth of matter ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦asserted. ¦ +--------+-----------+----------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lines 19-21: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay, witness offers Ms. ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Howard's alleged statements for ¦ ¦ ¦12 ¦65:19-22 ¦the truth of the matter asserted. ¦Line 22: Overruled, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), 802. ¦but not admissible ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for truth of matter ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦asserted. ¦ +--------+-----------+----------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay and lack of foundation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness offers Ms. Howard's and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Mr. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Vargo's alleged statements for the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦truth of the matter asserted. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦All of his opinions are not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦rationally ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦65:23-66:12¦ ¦Overruled ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦based on the witness' perception ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are based on specialized knowledge¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦702, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for which he lacks. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 801(c), ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦802. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+----------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and question ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦assumes fact not in evidence. ¦Overruled, but ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness has no personal knowledge ¦statements of Ms. ¦ ¦14 ¦66:13-67:3 ¦as to whether Ms. Howard or Mr. ¦Howard are not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Vargo visited the ACO office. In ¦admissible for truth ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦fact, both have stated that they ¦of matter asserted. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦did not visit the ACO office. Fed.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦R. Evid. 602. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and assumes facts not in ¦ ¦ ¦15 ¦87:19-21 ¦evidence. Vargo did not "turned down . . . ¦Overruled.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the installation." Fed. R. Evid. 602. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and assumes facts not in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦evidence. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness' opinions regarding how a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦modification shop should typically respond ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦when a DER, FAA or ACO verbally indicates ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that an installation should not be performed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on the witness' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦perception, and are based on specialized ¦ ¦ ¦16 ¦94:5-14 ¦knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. ¦Overruled.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦702, for which he lacks. He has no prior ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦experience of a situation such as this. Ms. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Howard is not a DER. She is an Administrative¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DER, which means she is not actually a DER. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦See FAA Order 8110.37D, Aug. 10, 2006, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/ media/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Order/Order%208110.37D.pdf. And there is no ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦evidence FAA and ACO rejected the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦installation of the LiDAR system. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+----------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and assumes facts not¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦in evidence. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness' opinions regarding how a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦modification shop should respond when ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Mr. Vargo states that the FAA is not ¦Sustained. Lack¦ ¦ ¦ ¦going to approve installation of a LiDAR¦of foundation ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦system are not rationally based on the ¦(answered ¦ ¦17 ¦94:15-95:17¦witness' perception and are based on ¦generally as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦specialized knowledge within the scope ¦what "somebody"¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which he ¦would do). ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lacks. He has no prior experience of a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦situation such as this. Mr. Vargo never ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦stated that the FAA would not approve ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the LiDAR installation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+----------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay and lack of foundation. Witness ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦offers Ms. Howard's alleged statements ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for the truth of the matter asserted. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦All of his opinions are not rationally ¦ ¦ ¦18 ¦183:1-184:1¦based on the witness' perception and are¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦based on specialized knowledge within ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦which he lacks. He has no experience as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a manufacturer. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦801(c), 802. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Louis Vargo, April 21, 2011
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation. Mr. Vargo's opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his perception ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and are based on specialized knowledge ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦which he lacks. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦1 ¦17:9-18:8 ¦This testimony violates the prohibition ¦Overruled ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦against offering opinion testimony under 49¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CFR 9.9(c) ("An [FAA] employee shall not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦testify as an expert or opinion witness ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦with regard to any matter arising out of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the employee's official duties or the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦functions of the Department."). Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 701, 801(c), 802. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, lack of authenticity, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦hearsay and irrelevant. Witness offers a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦description of the photographs for the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦truth of the matters asserted. He fails to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦provide the foundation sufficient to ¦ ¦ ¦2 ¦23:23-27:6 ¦support a finding that the photographs are ¦Overruled ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦what he claims them to be. In fact, he is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦testifying as to the contents of a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦photograph he did not create or see in 2009¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and only received a week before his April ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦21, 2011 deposition. Fed. R. Evid. 402, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602, 701, 801(c), 802, 901(a) ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation. Mr. Vargo's opinions ¦Lines 8-16: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his perception ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and are based on specialized knowledge ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for ¦Lines 17-24:¦ ¦3 ¦28:8-24 ¦which he lacks. This testimony violates the¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦prohibition against offering opinion ¦Lack of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦testimony under 49CFR 9.9(c). Fed. R. Evid.¦foundation ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602, 701, 801(c), 802. ¦and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦speculation.¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation. Mr. Vargo's opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his perception ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and are based on specialized knowledge ¦ ¦ ¦4 ¦39:18-40:4 ¦within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦which he lacks. This testimony violates the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦prohibition against offering opinion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦testimony under 49CFR 9.9(c). Fed. R. Evid.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602, 701, 801(c), 802. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Troy Bush, April 21, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and hearsay within ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦hearsay. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness' opinions on the status of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦LiDAR installation are not rationally based¦Moot. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦on his perception and are based on ¦Defendants ¦ ¦1 ¦35:9-19 ¦specialized knowledge within the scope of ¦have ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which he lacks. ¦withdrawn ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness offers Mr. Hardy's alleged ¦this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦statements recounting what Mr. Vargo ¦designation.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦allegedly informed Mr. Hardy for the truth ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of the matter asserted by Mr. Vargo. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 801(c), 802, 805. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, hearsay within hearsay ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and assumes facts not in evidence. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness offers Uniflight's representations ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦recounting what a DER informed Uniflight ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦2 ¦37:25-38:21¦for the truth of the matters allegedly ¦Lack of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦asserted by the ¦foundation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DER. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 801(c), 802, 805. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness lacks personal ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦3 ¦39:17-23 ¦knowledge to testify as to what others were¦Lack of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦aware of in November 2009. Fed. R. Evid. ¦foundation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+------------+---------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay, witness offers Mr. Hardy's ¦Overruled, but ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦alleged statements for the truth of the¦not admissible ¦ ¦4 ¦41:4-10 ¦matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 801¦for truth of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(c), 802. ¦matter ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦asserted. ¦ +--------+------------+---------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and hearsay within ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦hearsay, witness offers Mr. Fielding's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦alleged statements recounting what U.S.¦Sustained. ¦ ¦5 ¦51:23-52:5 ¦Helicopters informed Mr. Fielding for ¦Hearsay. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the truth of the matters allegedly ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦asserted by U.S. Helicopters. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 801(c), 802, 805. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------+---------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sustained. Lack¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness opines as ¦of ¦ ¦6 ¦82:15-21 ¦to what Mr. Slade may have understood. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602. ¦foundation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Speculation. ¦ +--------+------------+---------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and hearsay, witness¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦offers the statements of an ¦Moot. ¦ ¦7 ¦117:4-13 ¦unidentified person for the truth of ¦Defendants have¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the matters allegedly asserted by this ¦withdrawn this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦unidentified individual. Fed. R. Evid. ¦designation. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602, 801(c), 802. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------+---------------------------------------+---------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and hearsay within ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦hearsay. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness' opinions are not rationally ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦based on his perception and are based ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦on specialized knowledge within the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which ¦Overruled, but ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦he lacks. Witness offers Mr. Wysong's ¦not admissible ¦ ¦8 ¦138:22143:17¦and Uniflight's alleged statements, ¦for the truth ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦including those recounting what office ¦of third-party ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦within the FAA allegedly informed them,¦information. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for the truth of the matters allegedly ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦asserted by an office within ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the FAA. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 801(c), 802, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦805. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions are ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not rationally based on his perception and ¦ ¦ ¦9 ¦191:6-23 ¦are based on specialized knowledge within ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which he¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lacks. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions are ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not rationally based on his perception and ¦ ¦ ¦10 ¦201:13203:8¦are based on specialized knowledge within ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which he¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lacks. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions are ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not rationally based on his perception and ¦ ¦ ¦11 ¦207:15-19 ¦are based on specialized knowledge within ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which he¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lacks. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Stephen Rodney Wysong, April 15, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and hearsay within ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦hearsay. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness' opinions are not rationally based ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦on his perception and are based on ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦1 ¦44:14-45:9 ¦specialized knowledge within the scope of ¦Lack of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which he lacks. ¦foundation.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness offers the FAA's alleged statements ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for the truth of the matters asserted. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 801(c), 802, 805. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, hearsay and assumes ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦facts not in evidence. Witness' opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦perception and are based on specialized ¦Overruled, but¦ ¦ ¦ ¦knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. ¦not admissible¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 702, for which he lacks. Witness ¦as to truth of¦ ¦2 ¦63:8-65:8 ¦offers Mr. Livezey's alleged statements, ¦things Mr. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦including those recounting his alleged ¦Livezey ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦meeting with Mr. Bush, for the truth of ¦stated. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the matters asserted. Mr. Livezey never ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦met with Mr. Bush. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 801(c), 802, 805.¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions are¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not rationally based on his perception ¦ ¦ ¦3 ¦69:14-70:1 ¦and are based on specialized knowledge ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for which he lacks. Fed. R. Evid. 602, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Overruled, but¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay, witness offers Mr. Costilla's ¦not admitted ¦ ¦4 ¦73:1-7 ¦alleged statements for the truth of the ¦for truth of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), ¦matters Mr. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦802. ¦Costilla ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦stated. ¦ +--------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay, witness offers an unidentified ¦Moot. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦FAA representative's alleged statements ¦Defendants ¦ ¦5 ¦79:1-10 ¦for the truth of the matters asserted. ¦have withdrawn¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), 802. ¦this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦designation. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+----------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and hearsay. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness' opinions are not rationally ¦80:18-25: Moot. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦based on his perception and are based ¦Withdrawn by ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦on specialized knowledge within the ¦defendants. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which ¦ ¦ ¦6 ¦80:18-81:14¦he lacks. Witness offers Mr. Costilla's¦81:1-14: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦alleged statements for the truth of the¦Overruled, but ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦matters asserted. ¦not admissible ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for truth of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 801(c), 802, ¦matter asserted.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦805. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Jerry Livezey, April 20, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+----------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his ¦ ¦ ¦1 ¦27:13-18 ¦perception and are based on specialized¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 702, for which he lacks. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+----------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his ¦ ¦ ¦2 ¦40:1-5 ¦perception and are based on specialized¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 702, for which he lacks. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+----------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his ¦ ¦ ¦3 ¦42:12-17 ¦perception and are based on specialized¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 702, for which he lacks. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+--------------------------------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation and hearsay. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness' opinions are not rationally ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦based on his perception and are ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦based on specialized knowledge ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Overruled, but ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 702,¦not admissible as¦ ¦4 ¦43:8-25 ¦ ¦to truth of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for which he lacks. ¦matters asserted ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦in lines 21-25. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Witness offers information he ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦discovered on the internet for the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦truth ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of the matters asserted. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 801(c), 802. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+--------------------------------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his ¦ ¦ ¦5 ¦44:8-22 ¦perception and are based on ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦specialized knowledge within the scope¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which he ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lacks. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+--------------------------------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his ¦ ¦ ¦6 ¦45:17-46:1 ¦perception and are based on ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦specialized knowledge within the scope¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which he ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lacks. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Ann Howard, May 18, 2011 and June 2, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+--------------------------------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on her ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦perception and are based on ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦specialized knowledge within the scope¦ ¦ ¦1 ¦29:21-31:2 ¦of Fed. R. Evid. 702, for which she ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lacks. She has only performed one ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦field approval and it was in 2011, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦after the events in question. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Floyd Michael Fielding, March 25, 2011
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his ¦ ¦ ¦1 ¦58:3-9 ¦perception and are based on specialized¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 702, for which he lacks. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of foundation, witness' opinions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are not rationally based on his ¦ ¦ ¦2 ¦87:20-23 ¦perception and are based on specialized¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦knowledge within the scope of Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 702, for which he lacks. Fed. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Evid. 602, 701. ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦The Court rules as follows on defendants/counter-plaintiffs' objections [Docket ¦ ¦No. 101]: ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of U.S. Helicopter, Inc., Mark Fingerle, April 14, 2011 ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Overruled. Defendants¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Lack of personal knowledge; calls for ¦fail to attach ¦ ¦1 ¦24:12-17 ¦speculation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. ¦sufficient context to¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦rule on the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦objection. ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦2 ¦37:12-38:3 ¦Lack of personal knowledge; calls for ¦Sustained. Lack of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦speculation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. ¦foundation. ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Troy Bush, April 21, 2011 ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Overruled. Defendants¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Assumes ¦fail to attach ¦ ¦1 ¦60:3-10 ¦facts not in evidence. ¦sufficient context to¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦rule on the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦objection. ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦2 ¦86:23-87:6 ¦Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. ¦Overruled. ¦ +--------+-----------+---------------------------------------+---------------------¦ ¦3 ¦87:10-18 ¦Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. ¦Overruled. ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+------------+------------------------------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦4 ¦146:19-25 ¦Lack of personal knowledge; calls for speculation. Fed. R. Evid. ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------+------------------------------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦5 ¦147:14-19 ¦Lack of personal knowledge; calls for speculation. Fed. R. Evid. ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------+------------------------------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦6 ¦230:9-18 ¦Lack of personal knowledge; calls for speculation. Fed. R. Evid. ¦Overruled. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------+------------------------------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦7 ¦231:5-12 ¦Lack of personal knowledge; calls for speculation. Fed. R. Evid. ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------+------------------------------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦8 ¦231:23-232:9¦Lack of personal knowledge; calls for speculation. Fed. R. Evid. ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------+------------------------------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦9 ¦232:17-25 ¦Lack of personal knowledge; calls for speculation. Fed. R. Evid. ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------+------------------------------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦10 ¦234:17-25 ¦Assumes facts not in evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 602. ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Speculation.¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Floyd Michael Fielding, March 25, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+------------+------------------------------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦1 ¦141:7-142:9 ¦Lack of personal knowledge; calls for speculation. Fed. R. Evid. ¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦602. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Donald J. Marsh, March 30, 2011 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦Item # ¦Testimony ¦Objection ¦Ruling ¦ +--------+------------+------------------------------------------------------------------+------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Donald J. Marsh is a current employee of Leica Geosystems, Inc. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Leica Geosystems, Inc. has designated excerpts from the deposition¦ ¦ ¦ ¦All ¦of Donald J. Marsh as well as listed Mr. Marsh as a may call ¦ ¦ ¦1 ¦ ¦witness. Plaintiff must either declare Donald J. Marsh unavailable¦Sustained. ¦ ¦ ¦designated ¦and use deposition designations or withdraw its deposition ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦testimony ¦designations and have him appear as a live witness. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Truckstop.net , L.L.C. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 2010¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦WL 1248254 (D. Idaho 2010). ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
BY THE COURT:
_________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge