Liverman v. Golden, No. 6:2015cv00029 - Document 104 (E.D. Okla. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Regarding Motions in Limine and Deposition Designations by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder: Granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion in Limine by Ken Golden; Granting 66 Motion in Limine by Cody Liverman; Granting in part and denying in part 82 Objection to Deposition Designations re: depo of Lisa Miller by Ken Golden ; and Granting in part and denying in part 87 Objection to Deposition Designations re: depo of Jaime Newberry by Ken Golden. (ndd, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Liverman v. Golden Doc. 104 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CODY LIVERMAN, Plaintiff, v. KEN GOLDEN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-15-29-SPS OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS A. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and Brief in Support [Docket No. 66] is GRANTED by agreement of the parties. B. Regarding Defendant’s Motion and Brief in Limine [Docket No. 62], the Court orders as follows: 1. The Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to items 1-11, and 13. 2. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to item 12 (“Witness and Exhibits not listed on Plaintiff’s witness or exhibit list”), to be re-urged at the time of trial if appropriate. 3. The Defendant's motion is DENIED as to item 14. C. Regarding the Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations for Lisa Miller [Docket No. 82], the Court orders as follows: 1. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are GRANTED as to items 1-4, and 8-16. Dockets.Justia.com 2. The Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations are DENIED as to items 5-7, 17, and 20-21. 3. The Defendant’s Objections in items 18-19 are denied as to the mention of Plaintiff Liverman but granted otherwise. D. Regarding the Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations for Jaime Newberry Calfy [Docket No. 87], the Court orders as follows: 1. The Defendant’s Objections are GRANTED as to items 1-12, 17-35 (including both objections identified as No. 35 on pp. 9-10), and 37-46. 2. The Defendant’s Objections are DENIED as to items 13-16. 3. The Defendant’s Objections with regard to item 36 are GRANTED as to page 146, line 1 – page 148, line 13, and DENIED as to page 148, line 14 – page 149, line 25. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2016.
]]>
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.
