Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 167 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS that Plaintiff Kevin Jordan's Objections to certain designations of Dr. Brandon Donnelly's deposition are SUSTAINED as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/21/16.(cbn)

Download PDF

Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 167 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A KEVIN JORD AN , Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -12 2 6 EN SCO OFFSH ORE COMPAN Y, D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 1) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court are Plaintiff Kevin J ordan’s objections to certain designations of Dr. Brandon Donnelly’s deposition. 1 The objections are SU STAIN ED , as set forth below. I. P AGE 21, LINE 14 – P AGE 22, LINE 3 Plaintiff’s first objection to the designations of Dr. Donnelly’s deposition is to Page 21, line 14, through Page 22, line 3. This excerpt reads: Q. So a patient in litigation, do they have any possibility of som e additional gain from having an injury that if they say they’re in pain or it lasts longer, is there any potential for them to have gain out of that? MR. ADAMS: Object to the form of the question. EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHWARTZ: Q. From your perspective as a doctor, do you understand that? A. I m ean, if they have m ore severe of an injury, I think they would potentially -- if it cam e down to a settlem ent, they would have m ore to gain from it, yeah. Plaintiff objects to this excerpt of Dr. Donnelly’s deposition on the basis that the testim ony is speculative. Federal Rule of Evidence 60 2 provides: “A witness m ay testify to a m atter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness 1 R. Doc. 119. 1 Dockets.Justia.com has personal knowledge of the m atter.” The foregoing testim ony of Dr. Donnelly is speculative and is not within Dr. Donnelly’s personal knowledge or his area of expertise. This testim ony is inadm issible, and the objection to it is SU STAIN ED . II. P AGE 92, LINE 17 – LINE 25 Plaintiff’s second objection is to Page 92, line 17, through Page 92, line 25. This excerpt reads: Q. So certainly Dr. Melan con should have known this as well, correct? MR. ADAMS: Object to the form of the questions. EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHWARTZ: Q. He’s part of your office. A. I can’t say if he should have known it or not. Plaintiff again objects to this testim ony as speculative. Plaintiff also argues that the testim ony is vague. The Court finds the elicited testim ony is speculative and is not within Dr. Donnelly’s personal knowledge. As a result, this excerpt of Dr. Donnelly’s deposition is inadm issible. The objection is SU STAIN ED . III. P AGE 10 4, LINE 4 – LINE 11 Plaintiff’s third objection is to Page 10 4, line 4, through Page 10 4, line 11. This excerpt reads: Q. And certainly, if we’re talking about litigation, if he dem onstrates a lack of m otion in the finger, that m ay help his case? MR. ADAMS: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: Potentially, yeah. 2 Plaintiff objects on the basis that the foregoing testim ony is speculative and would not be helpful to the jury. Again, the Court agrees. This excerpt is speculative. The elicited testim ony is not within Dr. Donnelly’s personal knowledge or his area of expertise. The testim ony is in adm issible, and the objection is SU STAIN ED . IV. P AGE 10 7, LINE 1 – LINE 9 Plaintiff’s fourth objection is to Page 10 7, line 1, through Page 10 7, line 9. This excerpt reads: Q. Or, perhaps, there’s som e alternative theory here that he’s trying to show you som ething that exists for his lawsuit? MR. ADAMS: Object to the form of the question. EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHWARTZ: Q. Is that possible, Doctor? A. It’s possible. This testim ony is objected to as speculative. The Court finds it is speculative an d is, as a result, inadm issible. The testim ony elicited is not within Dr. Donnelly’s personal knowledge. The objection is SU STAIN ED . V. P AGE 121, LINE 14 – LINE 22 Plaintiff’s fifth objection is to Page 121, lines 14 through Page 121, line 22. This excerpt reads: Q. Could be for som ebody who would be pain seeking and trying to get drugs, correct? MR. ADAMS: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: Or for anybody that you don’t have a great cause of, you know, why they’re having a particular pain. 3 This testim ony is inadm issible as speculative. The testim ony is also inadm issible pursuant to the Court’s order excluding any evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior. 2 The objection is SU STAIN ED . IT IS SO ORD ERED . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 1s t d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 2 See R. Doc. 165. 4

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.