Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State ex rel Lutz v. Berkeley Heartlab, Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division

December 1, 2017

United States of America, et al, Plaintiffs,
v.
Berkeley Heartlab, Inc., et al, Defendants. ex rel Scarlett Lutz, et al.. Plaintiffs-Relators, Government's Designation Defendants' Objections Ruling Government's Designation Defendants' Objections Ruling Government's Designation Defendants' Objections Ruling

          ORDER AND OPINION

          Richard Mark Gergel Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Objections to the Government's Deposition Designations for Defendant Robert Bradford Johnson and Defendant Floyd Calhoun Dent, III, and the Government's Objections to Defendants' Counter-Designations. (Dkt. No. 761.) The Court has ruled on each Objection as set forth below.

         I. Deposition of Robert Bradford Johnson (Dkt. No. 761-3)

Government's Designation
Defendants' Objections
Ruling

Pg. 12, Ln. 24-Pg. 14, Ln. 16

and

Pg. 15, Ln. 9-Pg. 16, Ln. 10

Statements about Johnson's other business assets are irrelevant.

Objection is denied because statements are relevant and prejudice does not outweigh probative value.

Pg. 42, Ln. 22 -Pg. 44, Ln. 8

and

Pg. 69, Ln. 17-Pg. 70, Ln. 3

and

Pg. 73, Ln. 7-16

Information about Johnson's salary from over a decade ago is irrelevant.

Objection is denied because statements are relevant and prejudice does not outweigh probative value.

Pg. 153, Ln. 2-8

No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 153, Ln. 19 - Pg. 154, Ln. 1] for being beyond the scope of the designation.

Government's objection to counter-designation is denied.

Pg. 204, Ln. 15-Pg. 205, Ln. 12

No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 205, Ln. 22 - Pg. 206, Ln. 17] for being beyond the scope of the designation.

Government's objection to counter-designation is denied.

Pg. 213, Ln. 23-Pg. 215, Ln. 15

Information about earnings of other businesses compared to Blue Wave is more prejudicial than probative.

Objection is denied because statements are relevant and prejudice does not outweigh probative value.

Pg. 232, Ln. 11-Pg. 233, Ln. 19

No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 235, Ln. 7-14] for being beyond the scope of the designation.

Government's objection to counter-designation is denied.

         II. Deposition of Floyd Calhoun Dent, III (Dkt. No. 761-2)

Government's Designation
Defendants' Objections
Ruling

Pg. 8, Ln. 2-5 and Pg. 88, Ln. 4-25

Lestimony of Dent's past salaries at different jobs is irrelevant and prejudicial.

Objection is denied because statements are relevant and prejudice does not outweigh probative value.

Pg. 180, Ln. 24-Pg. 184, Ln. 16

No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 184, Ln. 17 - Pg. 185, Ln. 13] for being beyond the scope of the designation and that deponent's answers are non-responsive.

Government's objection to counter-designation is denied.

Pg. 185, Ln. 14-24

No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 185, Ln. 25 - Pg. 186, Ln. 15] for being beyond the scope of the designation.

Government's objection to counter-designation is denied.

III. 30(b)(6) Deposition of Floyd Calhoun Dent, III (Dkt. No. 761-4)

Government's Designation
Defendants' Objections
Ruling

Pg. 86, Ln. 14-Pg. 87, Ln. 23

Description of an old office building as looking like "an old crack shack" has no probative value, is confusing and wastes time and is unfairly prejudicial.

Objection is sustained because prejudice outweighs probative value.

Pg. 110, Ln. 15-Pg. 111, Ln. 7

No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. Ill. Ln. 8-19] for being beyond the scope of the designation and that deponent's answers are non-responsive.

Government's objection to counter-designation is denied.

Pg. 143, Ln. 25-Pg. 145, Ln. 9

Objection to profits and revenues of Blue Wave has received court ruling, but defendants preserve and do not waive the objection.

Objection denied as already ruled in Order on Motion in Limine, Dkt. No. 727 at 10-11.

Pg. 172, Ln. 23-Pg. 173, Ln. 5

No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg.173, Ln. 6 - 174, Ln. 9] for being beyond the scope of the designation and that deponent's answers are non-responsive.

Government's objection to counter-designation is denied.

Pg. 185, Ln. 24-Pg. 186, Ln. 6

Objection under Rule 602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that the witness is asked about a document he did not prepare and is not familiar with.

Government objects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 186, Ln. 7 - 25] for being beyond the scope of the designation.

Objection is denied because witness answered questions without indicating any lack of familiarity or knowledge.

Government's objection to counter-designation is denied.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.