Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONIQUE GUERRERO, et al., CASE NO. CV F 06-1539 LJO SMS

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON DEFENDANT GM’S

OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF

DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF GAY KENT

AND WILLIAM MALOPOLSKI

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On March 31, 2008, Defendant General Motors Corporation (“GM”) filed objections to

Plaintiffs’ designation of deposition testimony of William Malopolski and Gay Kent (Docs. 164, 165).

GM objects to one line of William Malopolski’s designated deposition testimony. GM raises 21

objections to the designated deposition testimony of Gay Kent. 

Paragraph R(6) of the Pretrial Order (Doc. 96) requires: 

All objections [to deposition testimony] shall be in writing, shall identify by page and

line number the testimony or content subject to the objection, and shall include a citation

to the legal authority explaining the grounds for the objection and why the testimony or

content is improper. A concise argument concerning the testimony or content may be

included.

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 187 Filed 04/01/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

GM listed the page and line number of the testimony subject to the objections, but failed to include a

citation to the legal authority explaining the grounds for the objection. GM further failed to explain why

the testimony or content is improper.

Having read and reviewed GM’s objections, along with the Pretrial Order requirements, this

Court:

1. SUSTAINS GM’s objection to page 48, lines 24-25 of William Malopolski’s deposition

testimony. Neither the two questions asked nor the partial answer is clear enough to be

read and/or relied upon by the jury; and

2. OVERRULES each of GM’s 21 objections to the designated deposition testimony of Gay

Kent, based on the absence of legal specificity and/or authority. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 187 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 2