Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 169 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS that both parties objections to designations of Joanna Jordan's deposition are ruled upon as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/21/16.(cbn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 169 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 ORD ER AN D REAS ON S SECTION : “E” ( 1) Before the Court are both parties’ objections to designations of J oanna J ordan’s deposition. 1 The Court rules on the objections as follows. Plain tiff’s Obje ctio n s I. P AGE 33, LINE 8 – P AGE 34, LINE 6 Plaintiff objects to this excerpt of J oanna J ordan’s deposition on the basis that it is inadm issible hearsay. The Court disagrees. This testim ony is adm issible as the statem ent of an opposing party under Rule 80 1(d)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Eviden ce. Un der Rule 8 0 1(d)(2)(A), a statem ent that m eets the following conditions is not hearsay: “The statem ent is offered against an opposing party and . . . was m ade by the party in an individual or representative capacity.” In this excerpt, Ms. J ordan recounts a statem ent m ade to her by the Plaintiff. Because the Defendant seeks to offer this testim ony against the Plaintiff, and because the statem ent was m ade by Plaintiff individually to Ms. J ordan, the testim ony is adm issible under Rule 8 0 1(d)(2)(A). The objection to this excerpt of Ms. J ordan’s deposition is OVERRU LED . II. P AGE 35, LINE 9 – LINE 16 Plaintiff objects to this portion of Ms. J ordan’s deposition on the basis of relevance. In this excerpt Ms. J ordan is asked by defense counsel whether the Plaintiff is current on 1 R. Doc. 121; R. Doc. 133 at 3, 4. 1 Dockets.Justia.com his child support paym ents. This testim ony is not relevant to any issues in this case. This testim ony is not adm issible. The objection is SU STAIN ED . III. P AGE 36, LINE 4 – P AGE 38, LINE 2 Plaintiff objects to this designation of Ms. J ordan’s testim ony as hearsay. This design ation is the statem ent of an opposing party and thus is not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 80 1(d)(2)(A). The objection to hearsay is OVERRU LED . The Court finds, however, that a portion of this designation is irrelevant. Page 36, line 4 through line 21, concluding with “That’s okay,” is irrelevant and, as a result, is inadm issible. These lines of the deposition are excluded. The rem ain der of this design ation, beginning with “What did he say to you” on Page 36, line 21, through Page 38 , line 2, is adm issible. The objection to relevance as to this testim ony is SU STAIN ED . IV. P AGE 40 , LINE 17 – P AGE 45, LINE 25 This portion of Ms. J ordan’s deposition testim ony is objected to as hearsay. This objection is S U STAIN ED IN PART and OVERRU LED IN PART, as set forth below. Page 40 , line 18, through Page 41, lin e 5, is inadm issible hearsay. This testim ony, where Ms. J ordan recounts statem ents m ade by Plaintiff’s divorce attorney, does not qualify for any exception to or exclusion from the general hearsay rule. Page 41, lin e 6, through Page 41, line 20 , is adm issible. This qualifies as the statem ent of an opposing party under Rule 8 0 1(d)(2)(A). Page 41, line 21, through Page 43, line 2, is in adm issible. This testim ony is irrelevant to any issues in this case and, even if relevant, is m ore prejudicial than probative. Moreover, this testim ony is in adm issible pursuant to the Court’s ruling on the m otion in lim ine with respect to Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior. 2 2 See R. Doc. 165. 2 Page 43, line 3, through Page 43, line 11, is adm issible. Page 43, line 12, through Page 44, line 10 , is inadm issible hearsay. This testim ony, where Ms. J ordan recounts statem ents m ade by Plaintiff’s divorce attorney, does not qualify for any exception or exclusion from the general hearsay rule. Page 44, line 11, is adm issible. Page 44, lines 12 through 15, is in adm issible hearsay. Page 44, line 16, through Page 44, line 24, concluding with “I did not tell George,” is adm issible. Page 44, line 24, starting with “because George told m e . . . ” to Page 45, line 5, is inadm issible hearsay. Page 45, lin e 6, through Page 45, line 25 is adm issible. V. P AGE 46, LINE 8 – LINE 21 Plaintiff objects to this designation on the basis of relevance. In this portion of the deposition testim ony, Ms. J ordan is questioned about Plaintiff’s alleged snorting of Adderall and how he behaves after snorting it. This testim ony is irrelevant to any issues in this case and, even if relevant, is m ore prejudicial than probative. Moreover, this testim ony is inadm issible pursuant to the Court’s ruling on the m otion in lim ine with respect to Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior. 3 The objection is SU STAIN ED . D e fe n d an t’s Obje ctio n s I. P AGE 55, LINE 16 – P AGE 57, LINE 3 Ms. J ordan is asked about certain text m essages in this excerpt of her deposition. Defendant objects to the testim ony on the basis that the m essages shown Ms. J ordan were not and have not been authenticated. The Court agrees. The objection is SU STAIN ED . 3 See R. Doc. 165. 3 II. P AGE 58 , LINE 10 – P AGE 62, LINE 3 Defendant objects to this portion of Ms. J ordan’s deposition, arguing that the docum ents presented to Ms. J ordan and discussed by her were not com plete but were only partial screenshots of the actual docum ents. The objection is OVERRU LED . This testim ony is adm issible. Ms. J ordan authenticated these docum ents during her deposition, and counsel had an opportunity to cross exam ine her at that tim e. III. P AGE 61, LINE 20 – P AGE 64, LINE 4 In this deposition excerpt Ms. J ordan is presen ted a series of Facebook screenshots and is asked various questions about them . Defendant objects to the testim ony on the basis that there is no colloquy or argum ent about what is being shown to Ms. J ordan. The objection is S U STAIN ED IN PART and OVERRU LED IN PART, as set forth below. This excerpt overlaps in part with Defendant’s objection to Page 58, line 10 , through Page 62, line 3. The Court found this excerpt adm issible above. Therefore, Page 61, line 20 , through Page 62, line 3, is adm issible. Page 62, line 4, through Page 62, line 17, is inadm issible. The docum ents shown to Ms. J ordan during this portion of her testim ony were not authenticated. Page 62, lines 18 and 19, is adm issible. Page 62, line 20 , through Page 63, line 22, is inadm issible. The docum ents shown to Ms. J ordan during this portion of her testim ony were not authenticated. Page 63, line 23, through Page 64, lin e 4, is adm issible. IV. P AGE 72, LINE 4 – P AGE 78, LINE 21 This testim ony concerns a potential divorce settlem ent agreem ent between the Plaintiff and Ms. J ordan. Defendant objects to the testim ony on the basis of relevance and 4 argues that the testim ony is m ore prejudicial that probative. The objection is SU STAIN ED IN PART and OVERRU LED IN PART, as set forth below. Page 72, line 4, through Page 74, line 8 , is inadm issible. This testim ony is not relevant to any issues in this case. Page 74, line 9, through Page 74, line 21, is adm issible. Page 74, line 22, through Page 76, line 23, is inadm issible. This testim ony is not relevant to any issues in this case. Page 76, line 24, through Page 77, line 22, is adm issible. Page 77, line 23, through Page 78, line 21, is inadm issible. This testim ony is not relevant to any issues in this case. V. P AGE 80 , LINE 5 – P AGE 82, LINE 6 During this exchange, Ms. J ordan is shown a screenshot of a text m essage which is ostensibly from the cell phone of her then-boyfriend Charlie Rain ey. Defendant objects to the testim ony on the basis that Ms. J ordan did not have person al knowledge of the inform ation and could not testify as to it. The objection is SU STAIN ED , except as to Page 8 0 , lines 6 and 7. 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 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.
