Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02458/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02458-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENERTRODE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL CAPACITOR CO. LTD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02458-HSG 

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO 

CORRECT FILING ERROR

Re: Dkt. No. 286

On November 8, 2018, the parties submitted a joint filing regarding disputed deposition 

testimony designations. See Dkt. No. 279.1 On November 10, 2018, the Court ruled on the 

admissibility of deposition designations identified in the joint filing. See Dkt. No. 283. On 

November 11, 2018, Defendants submitted this motion, asking the Court to rule on additional 

disputed deposition designations, which the parties unintentionally omitted from the November 8, 

2018 joint filing. See Dkt. No. 286. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs do not object to the 

Court’s consideration of this motion. Id. at 2. 

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court rules on the admissibility of the 

additional deposition designations as follows2:

RELATED 

EXHIBIT DEPONENT DESIGNATION RULING

Ex. 1.1 Lewis, Darrell 19:05–24 Objection overruled

Ex. 2.1 Lewis, Darrell 20:20–34:19 Objection overruled

Ex. 4.1 Lewis, Darrell 73:06–74:11 Objection overruled

Ex. 5.1 Lewis, Darrell 154:09–17 Objection overruled. The parties are 

directed to meet and confer regarding the 

 

1 Attachments to the joint filing were submitted on November 9, 2018. See Dkt. Nos. 280–81.

2 The Court does not address withdrawn designations or objections.

Case 4:16-cv-02458-HSG Document 287 Filed 11/12/18 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

admissibility of Defendants’ proposed 

cross-designation—150:9–152:2—the 

pages for which the parties did not provide 

the Court for consideration.

Ex. 6.1 Zhao, Wei 23:13–22 Objections overruled

Ex. 7.1 Zhao, Wei 32:17–21 Objection overruled

Ex. 8.1 Zhao, Wei 33:14–34:01 Objection overruled

Ex. 9.1 Zhao, Wei 51:25–54:07 Overruled as to relevance objection. 

Sustained as to hearsay objection.

Ex. 10.1 Zhao, Wei 75:25–76:17 Objection overruled. It appears there is no 

dispute that the testimony is only relevant 

to spoliation.

Ex. 11.2 Zhao, Wei 105:08–20 Objections overruled

Ex. 12.1 Zhao, Wei 106:25–107:17 The Court previously ruled that this

testimony is admissible, but subject to a 

limiting instruction because the testimony 

is not offered for the truth of the matter 

asserted. See Dkt. No. 283, at 2.

Ex. 13.1 St. John, Robert 13:19–14:11 Objection overruled

Ex. 14.1 St. John, Robert 28:14–29:05 Objections overruled

Ex. 15.1 St. John, Robert 30:17–31:06 Objections overruled

Ex. 16.1 St. John, Robert 40:01–07 Objection overruled

Ex. 17.1 St. John, Robert 41:21–42:13 Objection overruled

Ex. 18.1 St. John, Robert 42:16–43:25 Objection sustained

Ex. 19.1 St. John, Robert 48:12–18 Objections overruled

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2018

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-02458-HSG Document 287 Filed 11/12/18 Page 2 of 2