Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge
ORDER and OPINION
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'sDesignation |
Defendants' Objections |
Ruling |
| Pg. 12, Ln. 24 -Pg. 14, Ln. 16andPg. 15, Ln. 9 -Pg. 16, Ln. 10 |
Statements about Johnson's otherbusiness assets are irrelevant. |
Objection is denied becausestatements are relevant andprejudice does not outweighprobative value. |
| Pg. 42, Ln. 22 -Pg. 44, Ln. 8andPg. 69, Ln. 17 -Pg. 70, Ln. 3andPg. 73, Ln. 7-16 |
Information about Johnson'ssalary from over a decade ago isirrelevant. |
Objection is denied becausestatements are relevant andprejudice does not outweighprobative value. |
| Pg. 153, Ln. 2-8 |
No objection, but Governmentobjects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 153, Ln. 19 - Pg.154, Ln. 1] for being beyond thescope of the designation. |
Government's objection tocounter-designation is denied. |
| Pg. 204, Ln. 15 -Pg. 205, Ln. 12 |
No objection, but Governmentobjects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 205, Ln. 22 - Pg.206, Ln. 17] for being beyond thescope of the designation. |
Government's objection tocounter-designation is denied. |
| Pg. 213, Ln. 23 -Pg. 215, Ln. 15 |
Information about earnings ofother businesses compared toBlue Wave is more prejudicialthan probative. |
Objection is denied becausestatements are relevant andprejudice does not outweighprobative value. |
| Pg. 232, Ln. 11 -Pg. 233, Ln. 19 |
No objection, but Governmentobjects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 235, Ln. 7 -14]for being beyond the scope of thedesignation. |
Government's objection tocounter-designation is denied. |
II. Deposition of Floyd Calhoun Dent, III (Dkt. No. 761-2)
| Government'sDesignation |
Defendants' Objections |
Ruling |
| Pg. 8, Ln. 2-5andPg. 88, Ln. 4-25 |
Testimony of Dent's past salariesat different jobs is irrelevant andprejudicial. |
Objection is denied becausestatements are relevant and prejudicedoes not outweigh probative value. |
| Pg. 180, Ln. 24 -Pg. 184, Ln. 16 |
No objection, but Governmentobjects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 184, Ln. 17 - Pg.185, Ln. 13] for being beyond the |
Government's objection to counter-designation is denied. |
| | | scope of the designation and thatdeponent's answers are non-responsive.
| | | Pg. 185, Ln. 14-24
No objection, but Governmentobjects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 185, Ln. 25 - Pg.186, Ln. 15] for being beyond thescope 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'sDesignation |
Defendants' Objections |
Ruling |
| Pg. 86, Ln. 14 -Pg. 87, Ln. 23 |
Description of an old officebuilding as looking like "an oldcrack shack" has no probativevalue, is confusing and wastes timeand is unfairly prejudicial. |
Objection is sustained becauseprejudice outweighs probativevalue. |
| Pg. 110, Ln. 15 -Pg. 111, Ln. 7 |
No objection, but Governmentobjects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg. 111, Ln. 8-19] forbeing beyond the scope of thedesignation and that deponent'sanswers are non-responsive. |
Government's objection tocounter-designation is denied. |
| Pg. 143, Ln. 25 -Pg. 145, Ln. 9 |
Objection to profits and revenuesof BlueWave has received courtruling, but defendants preserve anddo not waive the objection. |
Objection denied as already ruledin Order on Motion in Limine,Dkt. No. 727 at 10-11. |
| Pg. 172, Ln. 23 -Pg. 173, Ln. 5 |
No objection, but Governmentobjects to Defendants' counter-designation [Pg.173, Ln. 6 - 174,Ln. 9] for being beyond the scopeof the designation and thatdeponent's answers are non-responsive. |
Government's objection tocounter-designation is denied. |
| Pg. 185, Ln. 24 -Pg. 186, Ln. 6 |
Objection under Rule 602 of theFederal Rules of Evidence that thewitness is asked about a documenthe did not prepare and is notfamiliar with.Government objects to Defendants'counter-designation [Pg. 186, Ln. 7- 25] for being beyond the scope ofthe designation. |
Objection is denied becausewitness answered questionswithout indicating any lack offamiliarity or knowledge.Government's objection tocounter-designation is denied. |
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge December 1, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina