United States of America et al v. BlueWave Healthcare Consultants Inc et al, No. 9:2014cv00230 - Document 792 (D.S.C. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Objections to the Government's Deposition Designations for Defendant Robert Bradford Johnson and Defendant Floyd Calhoun Dent, III, and the Government's Objections to Defendants' Counter-Designations. (Dkt. No. 761 .) The Court has ruled on each Objection as set forth in the Order. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 12/1/2017. (sshe, )
Download PDF
United States of America et al v. BlueWave Healthcare Consultants Inc et al Doc. 792 IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION United States of America, et al., Plaintiffs, ex rel. Scarlett Lutz, et al., ) ) ) Civil Action No. 9: 14-cv-00230-RMG (Consolidated with 9:11-cv-1593-RMG and 9: l 5-cv-2458-RMG) ) ) ) Plaintiffs-Relators, v. Berkeley Heartlab, Inc., et al., Defendants. ORDER and OPINION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Objections to the Government's Deposition Designations for Defendant Robert Bradford Johnson and Defendant Floyd Calhoun Dent, III, and the Government's Objections to Defendants' Counter-Designations. (Dkt. No. 761.) The Court has ruled on each Objection as set forth below. I. Deposition of Robert Bradford Johnson (Dkt. No. 761-3) Government's Designation Pg. 12, Ln. 24Pg. 14, Ln. 16 Defendants' Objections Statements about Johnson's other business assets are irrelevant. and Ruling Objection is denied because statements are relevant and prejudice does not outweigh probative value. Pg. 15, Ln. 9 Pg. 16, Ln. 10 -1Dockets.Justia.com Pg. 42, Ln. 22 Pg. 44, Ln. 8 Information about Johnson's salary from over a decade ago is irrelevant. Objection is denied because statements are relevant and prejudice does not outweigh probative value. No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 15 3, Ln. 19 - Pg. 154, Ln. 1] for being beyond the scope of the designation. No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 205, Ln. 22 - Pg. 206, Ln. 17] for being beyond the scope of the designation. Information about earnings of other businesses compared to Blue Wave is more prejudicial than probative. No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 235 , Ln. 7 -14] for being beyond the scope of the designation. Government's obj ection to counter-designation is denied. and Pg. 69, Ln. 17 Pg. 70, Ln.3 and Pg. 73 , Ln. 7-16 Pg. 153, Ln. 2-8 Pg. 204, Ln. 15 Pg. 205 , Ln. 12 Pg. 213 , Ln. 23 Pg. 215 , Ln. 15 Pg. 232, Ln. 11 Pg.233 ,Ln. 19 II. Government' s objection to counter-designation is denied. Objection is denied because statements are relevant and prejudice does not outweigh probative value. Government' s obj ection to counter-designation is denied. Deposition of Floyd Calhoun Dent, III (Dkt. No. 761-2) Government's Designation Pg. 8, Ln. 2-5 and Defendants' Objections Ruling Testimony of Dent's past salaries at different jobs is irrelevant and prejudicial. Objection is denied because statements are relevant and prejudice does not outweigh probative value. No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 184, Ln. 17 - Pg. 185, Ln. 13] for being beyond the Government's objection to counterdesignation is denied. Pg. 88, Ln. 4-25 Pg. 180, Ln. 24 Pg. 184, Ln. 16 -2- scope of the designation and that deponent' s answers are nonresponsive. Pg. 185, Ln. 14- No objection, but Government 24 objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 185, Ln. 25 - Pg. 186, Ln. 15] for being beyond the scope of the designation. III. Government' s obj ection to counterdesignation is denied. 30(b)(6) Deposition of Floyd Calhoun Dent, III (Dkt. No. 761-4) Government's Designation Pg. 86, Ln. 14 Pg. 87, Ln. 23 Pg. 110, Ln. 15 Pg. 111 , Ln. 7 Pg. 143 , Ln. 25 Pg. 145, Ln. 9 Pg. 172, Ln. 23 Pg. 173, Ln. 5 Defendants' Objections Description of an old office building as looking like "an old crack shack" has no probative value, is confusing and wastes time and is unfairly prejudicial. No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg. 111 , Ln. 8-19] for being beyond the scope of the designation and that deponent' s answers are non-responsive. Objection to profits and revenues of BlueWave has received court ruling, but defendants preserve and do not waive the objection. No objection, but Government objects to Defendants' counterdesignation [Pg.173 , Ln. 6 - 174, Ln. 9] for being beyond the scope of the designation and that deponent' s answers are nonresponsive. -3- Ruling Objection is sustained because prejudice outweighs probative value. Government' s objection to counter-designation is denied. Objection denied as already ruled in Order on Motion in Limine, Dkt. No. 727 at 10-11. Government' s objection to counter-designation is denied. Pg. 185, Ln. 24 Pg. 186,Ln. 6 Objection under Rule 602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that the witness is asked about a document he did not prepare and 1s not familiar with. Objection is denied because witness answered questions without indicating any lack of familiarity or knowledge. Government objects to Defendants' Government' s objection to counter-designation [Pg. 186, Ln. 7 counter-designation is denied. - 25] for being beyond the scope of the designation. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. rgel United States District Court Judge December 1, 201 7 Charleston, South Carolina -4-