Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 171 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS that Defendant's Objections to Certain Designations of Corey Temple's Deposition are Sustained in part and Overruled in part as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/21/16.(cbn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 171 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 is Defendant ENSCO Offshore Com pany’s objections to certain design ations of Corey Tem ple’s deposition. 1 The Court rules on the objections as follows: I. P AGE 23, LINE 3 – P AGE 24, LINE 16 Defendant objects to this testim ony, arguing it is speculative and was elicited with leading questions by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court disagrees. This questions posed to Mr. Tem ple were not leading. Neither is the testim ony im perm issibly speculative. Federal Rule of Evidence 70 1 perm its opinion testim ony from non-expert lay witness if it is (1) “rationally based on the witness’s perception;” (2) “helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testim ony or to determ ining a fact in issue;” and (3) “not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 70 2.” Mr. Tem ple’s testim ony is rationally based on his perception and would be helpful to the jury in understanding certain issues in this case. The testimony is not based on scientific or specialized knowledge. The objection to this excerpt is OVERRU LED . II. P AGE 27, LINE 24 – P AGE 31, LINE 7 Defendant objects to this testim ony on the basis that it is inadm issible hearsay. The objection is SU S TAIN ED IN PART and OVERRU LED IN PART, as set forth below. 1 R. Doc. 133 at 1– 2. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Page 27, line 24, through Page 28, line 16, is adm issible as the statem ent of an opposing party under Federal Rule of Evidence 8 0 1(d)(2)(A). Page 28, line 17, through Page 31, line 7, is inadmissible hearsay and is excluded. This testimony does not qualify for any exception to or exclusion from the general hearsay rule. III. P AGE 75, LINE 4 – LINE 24 Defendant objects to this excerpt of Mr. Tem ple’s deposition, arguing that the testim ony is inadm issible hearsay, is speculative, and is cum ulative of other portions of Mr. Tem ple’s deposition. The Court disagrees. The testim ony is not speculative, does not am ount to hearsay, and is not cum ulative. The objection is OVERRU LED . 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
]]>
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.
