Opinion
Case No. CV-F-97-5044-LJO
February 5, 2002
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITIC TESTIMONY SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED
INTRODUCTION
The United States of America ("Government") seeks to introduce deposition excerpts in evidende of the second phase of trial on the Government's tax lien foreclosure and related equitable claims. Sequoia Property and Equipment Limited Partnership and Hyper-Jean Property and Equip. (collectively the "limited partnerships") object to deposition excerpts identified by the Government. For the reasons discussed below, this Court rules on the objections.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2002, this Court conducted the continued second phase of trial on the Government's tax lien foreclosure and equitable claims. At the conclusion of witness testimony, and the Court discussed the Government's request to introduce deposition excerpts Government indicated it had provided to the limited partnerships a list of the deposition excerpts which the Government sought to introduce into evidence. The limited partnerships acknowledge receipt the Government's list of deposition excepts. This Court issued its January 18, 2001 order to require, I later than January 31, 2002, that the Government provide the Court its list of depositon excerpt previously identified and provided to the limited partnerships and that the limited partnerships file the objections to the deposition excerpts. The order also required the parties to address wheather the limited partnerships had waived certain objections by failing to raise them during the depositions.
On January 22, 2002, the limited partnerships filed their papers to make their objections and address the issue of waiver of objections. The limited partnerships objected only to excerpts from depositions of Gilbert Mark Crisp individually and as the person most knowledgeable of Sequoia Property and Equipment Limited Partnership. On February 1, 2002, the Government filed its papers identify the deposition excerpts it seeks to introduce into evidence and to address the issue of waiver objections. The Government identified excerpts from depositions in addition to those of Gilbert Mark Crisp.
This Court will entertain only those deposition excerpts which the Government identified for the limited partnerships on January 17, 2002. Because the limited partnerships objected to excerpts only from Gilbert Mark Crisp depositions, it is unclear whether the Government identified for the limited partnerships excerpts from depositions of other witnesses and whether the limited partnerships object to excerpts from depositions of other witnesses.
STANDARDS ON WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS
The initial issue is whether the limited partnerships may assert objections in addition to those made in the depositions, and if so, what additional objections are permitted. F.R. Civ.P. 32(b) address objections to admissibility of depositions and provides "objection may be made at trial or hearing receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of evidence if the witness were then present and testifying." Under F.R.Civ.P.Civ.P. 32(d)(3)(A), objection "to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one which might have be obviated or removed if presented at that time." F.R.Civ.P. 32(d)(3)(B) provides "[e]rrors as irregularities . . . in the form of the questions or answers . . . are waived unless seasonable objections thereto is made at the taking of the deposition."Generally, it is unnecessary to make an objection based on irrelevancy. In re Stratosphe Corporation Securities Litigation, 182 F.R.D. 614, 618 (D. Nev. 1998). However, to avoid waived timely objections during deposition should be made on grounds of ambiguous or uncertain (vague assumes facts not in evidence, or argumentative, In re Stratosphere Corp., 182 F.R.D. at 618; 2 Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2001) Discovery, para. 11:493, p. 11-10 Objections based on lack of foundation and use of facts not in evidence are deemed waived if not made during a deposition because they "might have been cured if presented at the deposition." In re WPM. Inc., 42 B.R. 157, 160-161 (Bankr. D. Haw. 1984) (citing F.R.Civ.P. 32(d)(3)(B)). Objections on grounds of hearsay, opinion evidence and materiality are not valid during a deposition based on the breadth of discovery. 2 Cal. Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2001) Discovery para. 11:496, p. 11-103.
The limited partnerships have raised objections on grounds including, argumentative, vague lack of foundation, legal conclusion, and relevance. At this stage, the limited partnership have waived the argumentative, vague and lack of foundation objections. Their legal conclusion and relevance objection are not waived and are subject to ruling.
RULINGS ON OBJECTIONS
The Court RULES on the limited partnerships' objections as follows:
January 13, 2000 Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable of Sequoia Property and Equipment Limited Partnership — Gilbert Mark Crisp
Page 7, line 15: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived.
Page 11, line 19: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived.
Page 35, line 16: The legal conclusion objection is SUSTAINED
Page 37, lines 13-19: The question was withdrawn objection is MOOT.
Page, 42, line 18: The vague objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived
Page 45, line 3: The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULE!
Page 45, line 9: The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED
Page 45, line 13: The witness asked for rephrasing of the question objection is MOOT.
Page 45, line 11: This is an incorrect citation to the deposition.
Page 52, line 1: The hearsay and matter of public record objections are OVERRULED.
Page 53, line 6: The foundation objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived.
Page 53, line 18: The relevance objection is SUSTAINED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Page 54, lines 3-17: The partnership agreement speaks for itself objection is SUSTAINED.
Page 55, line 18:
Page 56, line 3: The partnership agreement speaks for itself objection is OVERRULED.
Page 66, line 14: The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED.
Page 71, line 5: The foundation and vague objections are OVERRULED on grounds that were waived. The legal conclusion objection is SUSTAINED.
Page 73, line 11: The relevance objection is SUSTAINED.
Page 74, line 1: This is an incorrect citation to the deposition
Page 76, line 12: The argumentative and assumes facts objection grounds they were waived.
January 9, 2001 Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable of Sequoia Property and Equipment Limited Partnership — Gilbert Mark Crisp Volume II
Page 106, line 6: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived.
Page 106, line 10: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived.
Page 106, line 14: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived.
Page 107, line 15: The Court raises and SUSTAINS sua sponte a compound objection.
Page 107, line 22: The relevance objection is SUSTAINED.
January 10, 2001 Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable of Sequoia Property and Equipment Limited Partnership — Gilbert Mark Crisp Volume III
Page 130, line 7: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The relevance objection is OVERRULED.
Page 130, line 12: The relevance objection is OVERRULED.
Page 130, line 16: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The relevance objection is OVERRULED.
Page 130, line 19: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The relevance objection is OVERRULED.
Page 153, line 4: The relevance objuction is SUSTAINED
Page 153, line 7: The foundation objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived
Page 165, line 3: The foundation objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is SUSTAINED.
Page 166, line 13: The question withdrawn objection is MOOT.
Page 166, line 17: The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED.
Page 166, line 21: The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED.
Page 166, line 24: The question withdrawn objection is MOOT.
April 28, 1999 Deposition of Gilbert Mark Crisp
Page 35, line 11: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED
Page 35, line 14: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED
Page 35, line 21: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is SUSTAINED
Page 36, line 7: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED
Page 36, line 12: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED
Page 36, line 15: The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED.
Page 36, line 19: The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED.
Page 36, line 24: The argumentive objections is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED.
Page 37, line 2: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED.
Page 37, line 8: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED
Page 37, line 14: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED
Page 68:? This is an incomplete citation to the deposition.
Page 68, line 13: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED
Page 68, line 17: The argumentative objection is OVERRULED on grounds it was waived The legal conclusion objection is OVERRULED
Page 71, line 12: The legal conclusion objection is SUSTAINED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.