Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02458/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02458-28/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 REVISED 

JOINT FILING ON DISPUTED 

CITATIONS TO EVIDENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 279

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

testimony designations. See Dkt. No. 279.1 Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court 

rules on the admissibility of the deposition designations as follows2:

RELATED 

EXHIBIT DEPONENT DESIGNATION RULING

Ex. 1 Lewis, Darrell 12:23–14:12 Objection overruled 

Ex. 2 Lewis, Darrell 51:04–21 Objection overruled 

Ex. 3 Lewis, Darrell 84:03–85:10 Objections overruled 

Ex. 4 Lewis, Darrell 89:07–15 Objections overruled 

Ex. 6 Lewis, Darrell 95:04–101:01 Objection overruled 

Ex. 7 Lewis, Darrell 101:02–20 Objection overruled 

Ex. 9 Lewis, Darrell 102:17–24 Objection overruled 

Ex. 10 Lewis, Darrell 102:25–103:05 Objections overruled 

 

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2 The Court does not address withdrawn designations or objections. Nor does the Court address 

uncontested counter-designations.

Case 4:16-cv-02458-HSG Document 283 Filed 11/10/18 Page 1 of 3
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

Ex. 11 Lewis, Darrell 103:10–104:14 Objection overruled 

Ex. 12 Lewis, Darrell 105:02–106:13 Overruled as to foundation objection. 

Sustained as to hearsay testimony. 

Ex. 14 Lewis, Darrell 114:04–115:13 Objections overruled 

Ex. 15 Lewis, Darrell 115:18–116:04 Objection overruled 

Ex. 18 Lewis, Darrell 135:19–22 Objections overruled 

Ex. 19 Lewis, Darrell 147:24–149:03 Objections overruled 

Ex. 21 Zhao, Wei 23:04–22 Cross-designation approved

Ex. 22 Zhao, Wei 24:07–17 Objection overruled 

Ex. 24 Zhao, Wei 77:10–13 Objection overruled 

Ex. 25 Zhao, Wei 85:24–86:12 Objections overruled 

Ex. 27 Zhao, Wei 98:15–99:03 Objections overruled 

Ex. 28 Zhao, Wei 106:25–107:17 Overruled as to both foundation and hearsay 

objections. For hearsay objection: Not 

offered for the truth of the matter asserted, 

but subject to a limiting instruction

Ex. 29 Zhao, Wei 119:24–120:05 Overruled as to both relevance and hearsay 

objections. For hearsay objection: Not 

offered for the truth of the matter asserted, 

but subject to a limiting instruction.

Ex. 30 Zhao, Wei 134:09–139:22 Overruled. To the extent out-of-court 

statements are attributable to Zhong, those 

are opposing party’s statements, which are 

not hearsay. See FRE 801(d)(2). To the 

extent out-of-court statements are 

attributable to others, Plaintiffs did not 

provide particularized hearsay objections.

Ex. 31 Zhao, Wei 142:19–144:12 Objections overruled 

Ex. 32 Zhao, Wei 145:01–146:15 Objections overruled 

Ex. 33 Zhao, Wei 146:21–147:14 Objection overruled 

Ex. 35 Zhao, Wei 150:22–151:17 As to the relevance objection, the parties 

appear to agree on the exclusion of 

“[c]ounsel banter.” Overruled as to the 

Case 4:16-cv-02458-HSG Document 283 Filed 11/10/18 Page 2 of 3
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

hearsay objection: Not offered for the truth 

of the matter asserted, but subject to a 

limiting instruction.

Ex. 36 Zhao, Wei 151:18–152:09 Objections overruled

Ex. 37 Zhao, Wei 153:21–154:04 Overruled: Not offered for the truth of the 

matter asserted, but subject to a limiting 

instruction.

Ex. 38 Zhao, Wei 154:05–155:25 Objection overruled

Ex. 39 Zhong, Linda 289:06–10 Overruled as to both non-responsive and 

hearsay objections. For hearsay objection: 

Not offered for the truth of the matter 

asserted, but subject to a limiting 

instruction.

Ex. 40 Zhong, Linda 429:11–13 Cross-designation approved

Ex. 41 Zhong, Linda 519:16–520:6 Cross-designation approved

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/10/2018

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-02458-HSG Document 283 Filed 11/10/18 Page 3 of 3