Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05098-24/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

TK POWER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXTRON, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5098 EMC

ORDER RE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

OF STACEY GORDON

TK seeks to introduce in its case-in-chief excerpts from the discovery deposition testimony

of Stacey Gordon. Gordon will not appear live at trial but, pursuant to this Court’s Pretrial

Conference Order of April 28, 2006, will appear via a videotaped trial deposition taken last week. 

Textron now objects to TK’s use of the discovery deposition as improper hearsay.

The objection is OVERRULED. This Court’s First Amended Case Management and

Pretrial Order of December 9, 2005 requires each party, before the Pretrial Conference, to

“Designate excerpts from discovery that the parties intend to present at trial, other than solely for

impeachment or rebuttal, from depositions specifying the witness page and line references . . . ” 

Para. 5(d)(iii). Clearly, such designations encompass excerpts intended to be used in the designating

party’s case-in-chief since it excludes those excerpts used for “impeachment or rebuttal.” TK served

and filed such designations as part of the parties’ Joint Amended Pretrial Statement filed herein. In

response to the designation, Textron stated it had no objection to the designations from the Gordon

discovery deposition. It therefore waived any right to object on the grounds of hearsay, knowing

that TK’s designation encompassed possible use in its case-in-chief. This is so even though at the

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 201 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

time Textron anticipated Gordon would be available to testify live at trial. It had a hearsay ground

for objection but failed to make one. That Gordon will now testify via the videotaped trial

deposition taken last week instead of live, makes no difference. Textron had the opportunity to

object on basis of hearsay but failed to do so.

Moreover, the fact that Textron has been given the ability to examine and/or cross-examine

Gordon in the trial deposition which can be admitted into evidence satisfies any fairness concerns

that might have arisen if TK were permitted to introduce into evidence a one-sided discovery

deposition in which Textron decided not to cross for tactical reasons. 

As to Textron’s objections that TK’s questions at the discovery deposition might have been

leading, this Court’s standing Order for Civil Practice in Cases Assigned for All Purposes to

Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen states that “Deposition objections must be as to privilege or form

only.” (Para. 18.) If Textron did object on the deposition record on the ground of leading questions

and wants to now assert the objection at trial, it must alert the Court in advance so the Court can rule

and either require the answer to any sustained objection be deleted from the videotape or the jury

instructed to disregard the answer. If no objection was made at the deposition, it is waived.

Textron’s objection to the use of the Gordon discovery deposition is overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 201 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 2