In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, No. 2:2005cv04182 - Document 21020 (E.D. La. 2012)
Court Description: MRGO (10-866): ORDER and REASONS re Defendants Opposition to Certain Testimony of Deposition Designations Submitted by the Parties. Signed by Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr on 9/4/2012.(Reference: 10-866)(my, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation Doc. 21020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-4182 PERTAINS TO: Armstrong, No. 10-866 SECTION “K”(2) ORDER AND REASONS Defendant’s Opposition to Certain Testimony of Deposition Designations Submitted by the Parties The pages referenced are not the pages in the actual deposition, but the page in the deposition cuts that were submitted by the parties. 1. WALTER O. BAUMY Defendants’ Objections at Page 23: Defendants’ objection is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objections at Page 24: Defendants’ objection is OVERRULED. 2. JOHN GREISHABER United States’ Standing Objection at Page 8: The Court notes the standing objection and will rule on it when there is a specific objection to the effect that the question is beyond the scope of the designation. Defendants’ Objection at Page 24: The objection is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 25: Dockets.Justia.com The objection is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 33: The objection is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 36: The objection is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Pages 38-39: The objection is OVERRULED. 3. ST. BERNARD PUBLIC WORKS (Hilary J. Nunez, Jr. and Louis D. Pomes) Defendants’ 1st Objection at Page 8: Although Plaintiff did not respond, the objection is OVERRULED. Defendants’ 2nd Objection at Page 8: Although Plaintiff did not object, the objection is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 9: Although Plaintiff did not respond, the objection is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 11: Although Plaintiff did not specifically respond, the objection is OVERRULED Defendants’ Objection at Page 17: The objection with respect to lines 25:02 to 25:16 and line 25:21 with respect to the words “No doubt.” is SUSTAINED. The remainder of the objection is OVERRULED. 2 Defendants’ Objection at Page 25: The Court OVERRULES the objection, although Plaintiff did not make a specific response. Defendants’ Objection at Page 36: Defendants’ objection is SUSTAINED, however the Court notes the information about the cattle would have had no bearing on its decision one way or the other. 4. LAKE BORGNE LEVEE DISTRICT (and Robert Turner by written questions) Defendants’ Objection at Page 2: The defendants’ objections to all of the questions in writing posed to Mr. Robert Turner of the Lake Borgne Levee District are OVERRULED. The relevance of the answers given by the District are not manifestly evident, however to the extent that any information provided or referred to relates to the correct height of the 40 Arpent Canal Levee and any mistakes that may have been made and ostensibly corrected by Dr. Dalrymple do have some relevance. 5. STEPHEN ROE Defendants’ Objection at Page 64: The Defendants’ objection at page 64 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 65: The Defendants’ objection at page 65 is OVERRULED. 3 Defendants’ Objection at Page 66: The Defendants’ objection at page 66 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 67: The Defendants’ objection at page 67 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 76: The Defendants’ objection is SUSTAINED. 6. RICHARD VARUSO Defendants’ Objection at Page 17: The objection at page 17 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 21: The objection at page 21 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 24: The objection at page 24 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 26: The objection at page 26 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 32: The objection at page 32 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 34: The objection at page 34 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ Objection at Page 35: The objection at page 35 is OVERRULED. 4 Defendants’ 1st Objection at Page 38: The defendants’1st objection at page 38 is OVERRULED. Defendants’ 2nd Objection at Page 38: The defendants’ 2nd objection at page 38 is OVERRULED. 4th New Orleans, Louisiana, this ______day of September, 2012. STANWOOD R. DUVAL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.
