Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01987/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01987-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

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

GARY SIEBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENE SECURITY NETWORK, INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cv-01987-JST 

ORDER RE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY 

OF MICHELLE BULLS AND 

MICHELLE BULLS’ DECLARATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 147, 181

Now before the Court are the parties’ respective designations of the deposition testimony 

of Michelle Bulls. Portions of Bulls’ deposition testimony is admissible because she resides more 

than 100 miles from the courthouse. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4)(B). 

Plaintiff Gary Siebert originally designated a substantial portion of Bulls’ deposition 

testimony for trial. ECF No. 134 at 2-6. On January 5, 2015, Siebert withdrew his prior 

designations of Bulls’ testimony and replaced them with a more modest set, ECF No. 147, and it is 

that set this order addresses. 

On January 18, 2015, Defendant Gene Security Network, Inc. (“GSN”) filed objections to 

Siebert’s designations, counter-designations of its own, and a chart summarizing the parties’ 

respective designations. GSN’s objections address, and its chart includes, portions of Bulls’ 

testimony that Siebert is no longer offering. ECF No. 181. 

The Court ordered Siebert to file objections to GSN’s designations by January 22, 2015 at 

4:30 p.m. ECF No. 195 (Rep. Tr., Jan. 21, 2015) at 349. Siebert did not file any objections. 

Addressing only those portions of Bulls’ depositions that the parties have actually 

designated most recently, and the objections thereto, the Court now rules as follows:

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 198 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Page Designating 

Party Objection Ruling

17:9-20 GSN None Admitted.

19:8-12 GSN None Admitted.

20:12-22:2 GSN None Admitted, except that 

on its own motion, the 

Court will order that 

the colloquy at 20:19-

21:6 not be played for 

the jury.

23:20-23 GSN None Admitted.

34:8-39:7 GSN None Admitted.

50:20-51:21 GSN None Admitted.

57:15-65:2 GSN None Admitted, except that 

on its own motion, the 

Court will order that 

the colloquy at 64:14-

22 and 64:24-65:2 not 

be played for the jury.

65:9-67:24 GSN None Admitted.

68:13-23 GSN None Admitted.

69:15-70:17 GSN None Admitted, although the 

excerpt should start at 

69:14.

74:21-77:7 GSN None Admitted, although the 

excerpt should start at 

74:18 and the colloquy 

at 76:5-9 must be 

excluded. 

78:18-85:4 Siebert Testimony is incomplete and 

misleading because it fails to 

include relevant testimony on the 

same issue (85:7-86:5).

Overruled, although the 

excerpt should start at 

78:14. The Court will 

also adopt GSN’s 

counter-designation.

85:7-86:5 GSN None Admitted.

87:9-19 Siebert Testimony is incomplete and 

misleading because it fails to

include other relevant testimony on 

the same issue (87:20-24).

Overruled, although the 

Court will adopt 

GSN’s counterdesignation.

87:20-24 GSN None Admitted.

89:8-94:14 Siebert None Admitted.

95:2-98:12 Siebert Testimony is based on and refers to 

an inadmissible portion of the Bulls 

Declaration (¶ 4); testimony 

includes improper expert opinion 

and states legal conclusions about 

“material condition[s]” for NIH 

Overruled.

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 198 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

grants.

102:7-103:4 Siebert Testimony is incomplete and 

misleading because it fails to

include other relevant testimony on 

the same issue (103:5-104:21).

Overruled; also moot 

in light of the Court’s 

admission of GSN’s 

next deposition 

designation. 

102:11-104:21 GSN None Admitted.

105:10-106:3 GSN None Admitted.

106:8-16 GSN None Admitted, although the 

excerpt should start at 

106:4.

108:4-109:16 GSN None Admitted.

126:24-127:25 GSN None Admitted, although the 

excerpt ends at 127:21.

131:20-132:1 Siebert Testimony constitutes improper 

leading questions that lack

foundation; testimony is speculative 

and irrelevant because Bulls

previously testified that she has no 

personal knowledge about

how reviewers at NIH may have 

applied standard policies and

procedures to the applications by 

GSN (e.g., 59:3-8).

Sustained. 

132:20-133:19 Siebert Testimony constitutes improper 

leading questions that lack 

foundation; testimony constitutes 

improper expert testimony about 

what NIH would have done in 

hypothetical circumstances; 

testimony is irrelevant because 

Siebert has stated that his FCA 

claims are not based on allegations 

that an “unauthorized

person” at GSN completed the 

questionnaire.1

Overruled.

133:20-134:12 Siebert Testimony constitutes improper 

leading questions that lack 

foundation; testimony constitutes 

improper expert testimony about 

what NIH would have done in 

hypothetical circumstances; 

testimony is irrelevant because 

Siebert has stated that his FCA 

Overruled. Also, the 

excerpt ends at 134:15.

 

1 GSN’s objection is to the deposition testimony at pages 132:6-135:11, so it is unclear the extent 

to which its objections apply to the smaller designation that is actually at issue. 

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 198 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

claims are not based on allegations 

that an “unauthorized

person” at GSN completed the 

questionnaire.

134:16-135:11 Siebert Testimony constitutes improper 

leading questions that lack 

foundation; testimony constitutes 

improper expert testimony about 

what NIH would have done in 

hypothetical circumstances; 

testimony is irrelevant because 

Siebert has stated that his FCA 

claims are not based on allegations 

that an “unauthorized

person” at GSN completed the 

questionnaire.

Overruled. 

136:6-23 Siebert Court has ruled that testimony is 

inadmissible. See Order (Jan. 16, 

2015) (Dkt. No. 180) at 4.

Sustained.

136:24-137:13 Siebert Testimony constitutes improper 

hypothetical questions that lack 

foundation; testimony constitutes 

improper expert testimony about 

what NIH would have done in 

hypothetical circumstances; and 

excerpt concludes with improper 

and gratuitous comment by

counsel, which is not part of the 

testimony from the witness (“I’m 

confident I have represented the 

facts correctly”) (137:14-15).

Overruled, although the 

colloquy at 137:9-11 

must be excluded. The 

colloquy to which GSN 

objects at 137:14-15 is 

not part of the 

designated testimony.

137:20-139:4 Siebert Testimony begins with an 

incomplete question and answer; 

testimony constitutes improper 

leading questions and hypothetical 

questions that lack foundation; 

testimony constitutes improper 

expert testimony about what NIH 

would have done in hypothetical 

circumstances.

Sustained. The 

question is 

incomprehensible. 

The Court previously ordered that Michelle Bulls’ declaration was admissible “for the nonhearsay purpose of explaining Bulls’ deposition testimony.” ECF No. 180 at 4. Having now 

reviewed the portions of Bulls’ deposition that the parties designated, the Court concludes that 

only those portions of Bulls’ declaration to which the designated deposition testimony refers are 

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 198 Filed 01/26/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

admissible. When the parties submit a redacted copy of Bulls’ declaration, id., they should redact 

it accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 198 Filed 01/26/15 Page 5 of 5