Elosu et al v. Middlefork Ranch Incorporated, No. 1:2019cv00267 - Document 87 (D. Idaho 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (alw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Elosu et al v. Middlefork Ranch Incorporated Doc. 87 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO MARIA FERNANDA ELOSU and ROBERT LOUISE BRACE, Individuals, Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:19-cv-00267-DCN MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. MIDDLEFORK RANCH INCORPORATED, an Idaho Corporation, Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION In preparation for trial, MFR has designated three witnesses—Shane Hartgrove, Greg Gamez, and Regee Rauch—as “unavailable” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4). As such, MFR intends to offer their depositions in lieu of live testimony. Dkt. 71, at 2–3. Plaintiffs do not object to MFR using Shane Hartgrove’s deposition, but they do object to MFR using the depositions for Gamez and Rauch asserting they are not truly “unavailable” under Rules 804(a) and 32(a)(4). Dkts. 64, at 14; 83-2, at 2; 83-3, at 2.1 The Court has not held a hearing or heard argument on this specific issue. It has MFR’s Witness List indicating its intention to introduce the depositions and Plaintiffs’ objection. The Court intends to take this matter up at the final pre-trial conference on July 11, 2022, at 11:30am. Assuming MFR makes a proper showing—and the Court approves of the request—the In one instance, Plaintiffs cite to Rule 34(a)(4). No such rule exists. The Court assumes Plaintiffs mean Rule 32(a)(4). 1 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com following rulings shall apply. If the Court denies the request, the Court and counsel will discuss the best way to proceed. II. ANALYSIS Below are the Court’s rulings as to the specific objections. As it relates to Hartgrove’s testimony: for simplicity, the Court has not included designations where no objection was lodged. SHANE HARTGROVE MFR Designation Plaintiff Counter Designation Defendant Objection COURT’S RULING 12:2-6 401; 403 (insurance) (See 44:13-45:7; 57:1-4; 70:20 in which Plaintiff designates testimony with same ins. info) 401; 403 (insurance) 12:11-13:4 401; 403 (insurance) 13:9-25 401; 403 (insurance); 801(c) 30:22-25 Speculation, outside expertise, hearsay No personal knowledge of Brace state of mind; relevance Sustained as to both. Insurance cannot be discussed. Sustained. Insurance cannot be discussed. Sustained. Insurance cannot be discussed. Sustained. Insurance cannot be discussed. Overruled. 11:20-23 48:21-49:8 Plaintiff Objection MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 Overruled. 49:16-50:3 No personal knowledge of Brace state of mind; relevance No personal knowledge of Brace state of mind; relevance 401; 403 (insurance) 50:10-51:6 57:1-4 68:16-69:6 76:11-78:10 Overruled. Overruled. 57:1-2 can come in. 57:3-4 are out. Overruled. Cannot rule at this time. Nonresponsive To 77:25-78:10, Outside the scope of disclosed testimony, which was that he had no opinion. 401, irrelevant 81:19-25 20:7-19 Speculation; no personal knowledge. See 20:20-24 23:5-11 No personal knowledge; speculation re Rosen’s thoughts and feelings 64:18-22: misstates testimony. See 63:14-16 73:7-74:19: lack of foundation; assumes facts not in evidence; incomplete hypothetical; calls for speculation. 63:14-65:8 73:7-21 Sustained. Sustained. Speculation and lack of foundation. Overruled. Overruled. Cannot rule at this time. GREGG GAMEZ MFR Designation Plaintiff Counter Designation Plaintiff Objection MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3 Defendant Objection COURT’S RULING ALL (Video): 5:16-46:13 Exhibit 10: exhibit marked for identification in deposition, but no foundation for admissibility laid (see pp. 14-15) Exhibit 11: exhibit marked for identification in deposition, but no foundation for admissibility laid (see pp. 16) 26:9-11. No question asked. No personal knowledge of when “Dave” took video or what it depicts 27:1-13. No personal knowledge, speculating as to sequence of photos (see 26:14-18) Cannot rule at this time. Cannot rule at this time. The fact that he took the video can come in. Remainder is out. Overruled. REGGIE RAUCH MFR Designation ALL (Video): 5:17-44:24 Plaintiff Counter Designation Plaintiff Objection Exhibit 8: exhibit marked for identification in deposition, but no foundation for admissibility laid (see pp. 18) MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4 Defendant Objection COURT’S RULING Cannot rule at this time. 20:8-15: speculation, calls for inadmissible lay opinion Exhibits 4-5: exhibits marked for identification in deposition, but no foundation for admissibility laid (see pp. 22) 24:1-13: speculation, calls for inadmissible lay opinion. No personal knowledge of allegation, not qualified to offer opinion on fire cause or origin 25:1-4: no personal knowledge of what Mr. Koster tried or did not try to do. Sustained. Cannot rule at this time. Sustained. Overruled. 31:4: Objection Withdrawn Sustained. 37:17-23: Misstates testimony Overruled. DATED: July 8, 2022 _________________________ David C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
]]>
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.
