Cepero v. Gillespie

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Billy Cepero Case No.: 2:11-cv-01421-JAD-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Resolving Objections to v. Designated Deposition Testimony 6|| Douglas Gillespie et al., 7 Defendants 8 In the notices of deposition designations, the parties provided their objections to designated deposition testimony.! Attached are the court’s rulings on those objections, denoted next to the objection in the appropriate line of the charts. IT IS ORDERED that the objections sustained or overruled as stated on these attachments. 12 Whether addressed by these rulings or not, when presenting deposition testimony at trial, 13}| counsel must: 14 e Exclude the internal objections and any discussion about or response thereto; and 15 e Exclude attorney-to-attorney colloquy. [16] 17 USS. District Judge jennifer J Dorsey January 22, 2024 [23] ECF No. 271; ECF No. 273. 1 Kelly H. Dove, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10569 2 Dawn L. Davis, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13329 3 SNELL & WILMER LL. 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 4 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 784-5200 5 Facsimile: (702) 784-5252 kdove@swlaw.com 6 ddavis@swlaw.com 7 || Attorneys for Plaintiff Billy Cepero 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [10] 11 BILLY CEPERO, Case No. 2:11-cv-01421-JAD-NJK 2 12 Plaintiff, Court's Ruling on Plaintiff's 2a «13 Vs. Deposition Designations, Objections to Defendant’s Deposition Designations 14 DOUGLAS GILLESPIE et al., and Counter-Designations 15 Defendants. 2 16 ee □ 5 Plaintiff Billy Cepero submits the following deposition designations, objections and [17] counter-designations. Plaintiff's designations and counter-designations are highlighted in the [18] deposition transcripts attached as Exhibits 1-3. [19] A. Plaintiff's Designations [20] 1. Mark J. Rosen, M.D. [21] PLT. DEF. DEF. COUNTER | Court's Ruling on 22 | | DESIGNATIONS | OBJECTIONS DESIGNATIONS Plaintiff's 3 Objections 4:17-19 po 24 | [5ar28 | [ois OO 7:13-25 pe 26 || | 81-14 po 8:21-25 po CE Cid 28 || [| 9:9-12 po [2] DESIGNATIONS | OBJECTIONS DESIGNATIONS Plaintiff's Objections 1014-25 Ff Pf eres | [3125] iises wer-25 0 pUs125 ff —“—sSCSCSSC |S—C~CSC—CSO lof {209-25 0 tte —“‘RSSCSd 2 12922225 32s | ee 26:23-5 | aos SUT P2829 pa9-25 | Gor2¢ | □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Or? 32125 0 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ [33624 409-2500 Ff □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□□□ 23 (4221230 42250 ff i4ne2 /// a7 /// 28 /// _2- 1 || B. Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Designations and Counter-Designations 2 1. Michelle Lee Lowther 4 DESIGNATIONS | OBJECTIONS DESIGNATIONS Plaintiff's Objections S89 © t0:2-25 Tye pus-250 gf st-23 8S 10 44:17-20 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ , les Oi Sd | fe areas 8 [fois SSOSt—~—~—S TOD □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ | |) 23g sas ig || 261-25 Relevance | | vermnled mas) C—~sSSC SSCs □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 34925 —*([Relevance «| SS~SSCS 35:1-25 | Relevance | Sustained gy | [30:18 | Relevance | Stine ees ee 23 duplicative ee fies 24 duplicative, foundation □ 3913-2000 389225 | [40et0 | SSCS~—SOS SS □ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ yg | t~—“—~*~*s COCOC~C~—~SCS _3- 1 | | DEF. PLT. PLT. COUNTER 5 DESIGNATIONS | OBJECTIONS DESIGNATIONS 4417-20 PC 454-7 Relevance [CSc [5] 2. Stacie Pace [6] DEF. PLT. PLT. COUNTER | Court's Ruling on 7 || DESIGNATIONS | OBJECTIONS DESIGNATIONS Plaintiff's g Objections 4:9-13 P| 4218-25 Po □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 6:1-24 6:25 11 8:10-22 7-20 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ .CSCi‘“‘(!CC*” 12) Foss TTCSmSCOCOCOCOCOCYY □□□ 3 feet 2 iis-29fie) | Sd] CCS 14 | 12:1-25 Hearsay 29:5-25 16222 30:1-10 15 31:3-25 Overruled 16 32:1-19 = | Of 14:1-25 Od 18 145 7-25 Foundation 31:3-25 32:1-19 Overruled [19] 20 | [161-35 Hearsay | SSC~*dCSSC aa | Cid COdSCOC~—CS—SCSCC 21 | 47-73-25 33:14-25 92 34:1-25 35:1-25 23 36:1-25 37:1-14 [24] 18:1-16 18:21-25 25 19:1-12 2% 19:21-25 20:1-9 27 29:5-25 30:1-10 28 31:3-25 -4- 1 DEF. PLT. PLT. COUNTER | Court's Ruling on DESIGNATIONS | OBJECTIONS DESIGNATIONS Plaintiff's 2 Objections 37:1-14 4 38:25 39:1-21 [5] 6 19:13-20 No testimony 18:21-25 19:1-12 Overruled 7 19:21-25 20:1-9 8 29:5-25 30:1-10 ? 31:3-25 32:1-19 10 37:1-14 11 38:25 39:1-21 [12] 20:13-23 19:21-25 ag 20:1-9 14 22:7-22 25:17-25 228 15 26:1-21 | 33:14-25 16 34:1-25 2 35:1-25 36:1-25 18 37:1-14 38:25 19 39:1-21 41:9-20 [20] 21 || Dated: January 17, 2024. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. [22] By: /s/ Dawn L. Davis 23 Kelly H. Dove, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10569 24 Dawn L. Davis, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13329 25 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 27 Attorneys for Plaintiff Billy Cepero [28] _5- 1 || Marquis Aurbach Craig R. Anderson, Esq. 2 || Nevada Bar No. 6882 Tye S. Hanseen, Esq. 3 || Nevada Bar No. 10365 10001 Park Run Drive 4 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 5 || Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 canderson@maclaw.com 6 || thanseen@maclaw.com Attorneys for Defendant [7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] DISTRICT OF NEVADA [9] BILLY CEPERO, Case Number: 10 2:11-cev-01421-JAD-NJK Plaintiff, [11] Vs. COURT'S RULING ON 2 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS GILLESPIE, ET AL., AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS » 13 TO PLAINTIFF’S PAGE/LINE 236 Defendants. DESIGNATIONS AND COUNTER3 = 14 DESIGNATIONS [2] = 15 Defendant James Bonkavich (“Defendant”), hereby submits objections and = >= = counter-designations to Plaintiff's deposition designations as follows: ae 217 A. ROSEN. [18] Pltf. Def. Objections Court's Ruling on | Designations Objection 23 -13- :207:13-25 Hearsay. (7:20-21) 24) |3-1-14 Hearsay. (8:10-14) ee 27) 9:9-12 Foundation. No testimony. (9:9-12) Overruled [28] Page 1 of 8 SW [1321-25 Hearsay. (13:22-25) 12 20:9-25 Treating physician may not testify beyond a 13 scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 14 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d = 33 15 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). (22:19-23:6) Overruled [18] 19 - — □ 23:1-25 Hearsay. Treating physician may not testify 20 beyond scope of treatment (23:13-24:5) See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2] 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. Staples The Office Sustained 22 Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). (23:7-11) [24] 25:8-20 Treating physician may not testify beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 26 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. Ovenuled Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 27 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). (26:5-9) [28] Page 2 of 8 1 26:5-18 Foundation. Treating physician may not testify beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico 2 Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing 3 Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, Overruled 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 4 26(a)(2)(B)). Hearsay. Document outside of treating physician file. (26:16-25) [5] 26:23-5 Foundation. Treating physician may not testify 6 beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 7 2440953, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, Overruled [8] 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). Hearsay. Document outside of 9 treating physician file. (26:16-25) | 27:1-9 Foundation. Treating physician may not testify beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico 11 Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing 12 Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, Overruled 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule og 13 26(a)(2)(B)). Hearsay. Document outside of 5 a 4 treating physician file. (27:1-9) 3 27:14-22 Foundation. Treating physician may not testify 15 beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 16 2440953, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing as Goodman y. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, Overruled 8 17 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule ~ 26(a)(2)(B)). Hearsay. Document outside of 18 treating physician file. (27:14-22) 19} | 38-2-19 Foundation. Treating physician may not testify beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico 20 Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing 21 Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, Overruled 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 22 26(a)(2)(B)). Hearsay. Document outside of 33 treating physician file. (28:2-9) 29:1-25 Foundation. Treating physician may not testify 24 beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 25 2440953, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, [26] 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule Sustained 26(a)(2)(B)). Hearsay. Document outside of 27 treating physician file. (29:1-25) [28] Page 3 of 8 BFA MfCA ff O79 £4049 □□□□ 7 1 30:18-24 Foundation. Speculation. An attempt at causation that fails to satisfy legal requirements. See 2 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1314 (9th Cir. 1995) (must be 3 “sufficiently compelling proof that agent must have caused the damage somehow). Also, treating 4 physician may not testify beyond scope of Overruled treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., 5 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. 6 Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). 7 (30:18-24) 8] | 31:2-25 Foundation. Speculation. An attempt at causation that fails to satisfy legal requirements. See 9 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1314 (9th Cir. 1995) (must be 10 “sufficiently compelling proof that agent must have caused the damage somehow). Also, treating 11 physician may not testify beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., Overruled 12 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. og 13 Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 236 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). 4 & 14 (31:2-25) | 32:1-25 Treating physician may not testify beyond scope = P= of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., = 16 218CV01200APGNIJK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 as (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. $17 Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d Overruled ~ 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). 18 Also, speculation. (32:1-25) 19} | 33:1-11 Document outside of file. Treating physician may not testify beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas 20 v. Geico Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) Overruled 21 (citing Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 22 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). (33:1-11, 16-24.) [23] 33:16-24 Document outside of file. Treating physician may 24 not testify beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., 218CV01200APGNIK, 2022 Overruled 25 WL 2440953 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. Staples The Office 26 Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). 27 (33:1-11, 16-24.) [28] Page 4 of 8 BFA MfCA ff O79 £4049 □□□□ 7 yee | 47-6-12 Treating physician may not testify beyond scope of treatment. See Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co., 7 218CV01200APGNIJK, 2022 WL 2440953 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Goodman v. Sustained 8 Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)). 9 Also, speculation. (47:6-12) [10] i B. LOWTHER. © 12 Pitf.-Counter Def. Objections | Designations x - [24] C. PACE. [25] Plitf. Counter- Def. Objections 6 Designations 4 4:18-25 Felony not admissible under FRE 609(b). Sustained = [28] Page 5 of 8 1 7:1-16 2 8:10-22 3 17:2 [4] 18:21-25 [5] 19:1-12 [6] 19:21-25 [7] 20:1-9 [8] 22:7-22 [9] 10 25:17-25 11 26:1-21 12 29:5-25 [13] 30:1-10 [14] 31:3-25 [15] 32:1-19 [16] 33:14-25 [17] 34:1-25 [18] 19 35:1-25 20 36:1-25 21 37:1-14 [23] / / / [24] / / / [25] / / / [26] / / / [27] / / / 1 38:25 2 39:1-21 [3] 41:9-20 [4] 5 Dated this 19th day of January, 2024. [6] MARQUIS AURBACH [8] By /s/ Tye S. Hanseen 9 Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6882 10 Tye S. Hanseen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10365 11 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 12 Attorney for Defendant