Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Van v. Language Line, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

July 26, 2016

NATHALIE THUY VAN, Plaintiff,
v.
LANGUAGE LINE, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND DISCOVERY DESIGNATIONS RE: DKT. NO. 334

          LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

         Defendant Language Line, LLC (“Defendant”) has filed objections to Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van’s (“Plaintiff”) designation of depositions and discovery responses. ECF No. 334. Plaintiff has filed an opposition. ECF No. 340. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Defendant’s objections as set forth below.

         As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s deposition and discovery designations are in the form of a procedurally improper motion. Plaintiff submitted her deposition and discovery designations pursuant to this Court’s standing order on jury trials. The Court’s standing order also provides that “[a]ny objections to the use of designated excerpts . . . shall be filed and served at least 10 days prior to the commencement of trial.” Defendant filed objections on July 13, 2016-11 days prior to the scheduled start of trial. Thus, Defendant’s objections were properly filed in accordance with the Court’s standing order.

         Accordingly, the Court rules on Defendant’s objections as follows:

         A. Nathalie Thuy Van

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

All depo. testimony designated by Plaintiff

Sustained. Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony is not admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32. Plaintiff is not using her testimony to impeach herself, and Plaintiff is available to testify at trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff may not introduce her deposition at trial. The Court notes that Plaintiff may testify about matters that were discussed in her deposition. However, Plaintiff can not introduce her deposition.

         B. Michael Schmidt

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

All depo. testimony designated by Plaintiff

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

         C. Kimberly Schnader

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

All depo. testimony designated by Plaintiff

Overruled as to 6:5-9; 6:12-7:10:6; 10:14-24; 14:15-25; 25:13-15; 25:23; 25:25-26:6; 26:9-27:14; 27:17-29:11; 34:3-35:20; 43:16-24; 44:18-23.

Otherwise sustained.

         D. Barbara Sadler

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

All depo. testimony designated by Plaintiff

Overruled.

         E. Georgette Bloomer

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

4:5-19; 15:20-16:2

Overruled.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.