Walker v. Golden, No. 6:2015cv00028 - Document 102 (E.D. Okla. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion in Limine; granting 63 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 82 Objection to Deposition Designations; and granting in part and denying in part 87 Objection to Deposition Designations. (ndd, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Walker v. Golden Doc. 102 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA RYAN WALKER, Plaintiff, v. KEN GOLDEN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-15-28-SPS OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS A. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and Supporting Brief [Docket No. 63] is GRANTED by agreement of the parties. B. Regarding Defendant’s Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59], the Court orders as follows: 1. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to items 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11. 2. The Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to item 3, with the proviso that it may later be deemed relevant depending on testimony provided at trial, particularly from Lisa Miller. 3. The Defendant’s motion is DENIED and PERMITTED as to item 5 to the same extent denied and permitted in CIV-15-29-SPS, Liverman v. Golden. 4. The Defendant’s motion is DENIED as to item 7 subject to the provisions of Fed. R. Evid. 608. 5. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to item 12 (“Witness and Exhibits not listed on Plaintiff’s witness or exhibit list”), to be re-urged at the time of trial if appropriate. Dockets.Justia.com 6. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to items 13-14. C. Regarding the Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations for Lisa Miller [Docket No. 82], the Court orders as follows: 1. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are GRANTED as to items 1-5, and 8-9, 13, and 17-18. 2. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are GRANTED as to items 10-12, with the same proviso as stated with regard to item 3 of Defendant’s Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59], that they may later be deemed relevant depending on testimony provided at trial, particularly from Lisa Miller. 3. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are DENIED as to items 6-7, 14-16, and 20-21. 4. The Defendant’s Objections with regard to item 19 are DENIED as to page 68, lines 1-3, and GRANTED as to page 68, lines 4-5. D. Regarding the Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations for Jaime Newberry Calfy [Docket No. 87], the Court orders as follows: 1. The Defendant’s Objections are GRANTED as to items 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 18-25, 30-40, 42, 46-47. 2. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are GRANTED as to items 9, with the same proviso as stated with regard to item 3 of Defendant’s Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 59], that they may later be deemed relevant depending on testimony provided at trial, particularly from Lisa Miller. 3. The Defendant’s Objections are DENIED as to items 11, 14-17, 26-29, 41, 43-44, 48. 4. The Defendant’s Objection as to item 45 is DENIED, except that it is GRANTED with regard to any reference to Cody Liverman. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of February, 2016.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.