1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-22707-Civ- Leibowitz/Sanchez

PAYCARGO FINANCE LP, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY, 

 Defendant, 

and 

BAY MARITIMES INC.,

 Nominal Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Witness from 

Testifying at Trial (ECF No. 65) filed by defendant Aspen American Insurance Company 

(“Aspen”). In that motion, Aspen asks the Court to preclude the plaintiff, PayCargo Finance LP 

(“PCF”), from calling Ms. Amrita Ganguly, a PCF employee, as a witness at trial. For the reasons 

set forth below, that motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

A. The Untimeliness of Aspen’s Motion Warrants Its Denial

As an initial matter, Aspen’s motion is an untimely-filed motion in limine. Under the 

Scheduling Order that was entered in this case on December 5, 2022, the parties were required to 

file their motions in limine by August 28, 2023. ECF No. 22 at 3. That deadline was never 

Case 1:22-cv-22707-DSL Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2024 Page 1 of 5
2 

modified by the Court. Aspen’s motion, however, was not filed until September 26, 2023. ECF 

No. 65. It was thus clearly untimely and filed in contravention of the Court’s Scheduling Order. 

Aspen nonetheless seeks to excuse its untimely filing by arguing that it could not have filed 

its motion earlier because it did not know that PCF might be calling Ms. Ganguly as a witness until 

she was listed on PCF’s witness list on September 17, 2023. See ECF No. 65 at 3. That argument 

is unavailing. First, the Court’s Scheduling Order clearly required that motions in limine be filed

three weeks before witness lists were to be provided. ECF No. 22 at 3. Aspen was aware of that 

schedule, but failed to file a timely motion in limine seeking to exclude any potential PCF 

witnesses who were not designated for deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). Second, through 

PCF’s initial disclosures, Aspen had actually been made aware of Ms. Ganguly, that she was the 

Commercial Finance Director for PCF, and that she might have “knowledge about how Bay 

Maritimes, Inc. used the funds advanced by PayCargo Finance, L.P., the returned payments, and 

PayCargo Finance, L.P.’s efforts to collect on those returned payments.” ECF No. 67-2 at 2. Thus, 

Aspen had sufficient knowledge that Ms. Ganguly was a PCF employee who was a potential 

witness, and Aspen was aware of the subject matter of her knowledge. Aspen nevertheless took 

no steps to address Ms. Ganguly’s potential testimony through a timely motion in limine. 

Given these circumstances, the Court finds that Aspen’s failure to file a timely motion in 

limine to address Ms. Ganguly’s testimony at trial is not justified, and the untimeliness of Aspen’s 

motion warrants its denial.

B. Aspen Has Failed to Establish that Ms. Ganguly Should Be Excluded as a Witness

In its motion, Aspen seeks to preclude PCF from calling Ms. Ganguly as a witness at trial 

because, Aspen argues, “Ms. Ganguly’s testimony at trial could only serve to improperly and 

prejudicially change or supplement PCF’s prior testimony, which binds PCF and on which Aspen 

Case 1:22-cv-22707-DSL Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2024 Page 2 of 5
3

is entitled to rely” and the Court should thus “prohibit PCF from calling Ms. Ganguly as a witness 

at trial to testify as to any Rule 30(b)(6) topics noticed by Aspen including, without limitation, 

those pertaining to PCF’s alleged damages accounting.” ECF No. 65 at 3; see also ECF No. 65 at 

5-6 (arguing that “after PCF’s corporate representative was twice deposed regarding properly 

noticed topics, PCF is now attempting to introduce new evidence pertaining to these topics through 

Ms. Ganguly, another one of its employees who, according to PCF, has additional knowledge 

regarding these topics”); ECF No. 68 at 1 (contending that PCF “seeks to present the testimony of 

its employee, Ms. Amrita Ganguly, to change and/or supplement PCF’s twice taken deposition 

testimony”).

Other than Aspen’s speculation, nothing in Aspen’s motion or in the record establishes the 

content of what Ms. Ganguly’s trial testimony would actually be. Indeed, given that Ms. Ganguly 

was never deposed, the Court finds it difficult to understand how Aspen can advance its 

characterizations of the anticipated content of Ms. Ganguly’s testimony. Certainly, nothing has 

been presented to the Court showing that Ms. Ganguly’s testimony would change or otherwise 

deviate from the testimony previously provided by Mr. Philip Philliou during his depositions

pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). Her testimony may simply corroborate Mr. Philliou’s testimony, or she 

may be called to furnish a first-hand account by a witness with personal knowledge of the same 

facts and circumstances testified to on deposition by Mr. Philliou. Ms. Ganguly might also be 

called to testify at trial about matters about which Aspen never questioned Mr. Philliou during his 

depositions. The Court simply does not know at this point and on this record what Ms. Ganguly’s 

trial testimony might be. All the record establishes is that PCF may call Ms. Ganguly to “testify 

to accounting matters.” ECF No. 62-1 at 2.

Case 1:22-cv-22707-DSL Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2024 Page 3 of 5
4 

Moreover, nothing in Rule 30(b)(6) states that the individuals designated by an 

organization as Rule 30(b)(6) deponents are the only individuals who can testify at trial about the 

matters set forth in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition, and Aspen has certainly furnished no 

authority to the contrary. Indeed, although Mr. Philliou provided deposition testimony on behalf 

of PCF pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), that does not mean that he is the witness who has personal 

knowledge of all the facts about which he testified or that he is the person who is qualified to 

testify at trial about those matters. See, e.g., Radke v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 19-CV-23915, 

2021 WL 1738928, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 3, 2021) (“While Rule 30(b)(6) does not require a 

corporate deponent to have direct personal knowledge of the matters to which he or she testifies,

‘[Fed. R. Evid. 602] limits the [corporate representative’s] trial testimony to matters that are within 

his [or her] personal knowledge.’”) (footnote omitted) (quoting Indus. Eng'g & Dev., Inc. v. Static 

Control Components, Inc., No. 8:12-CV-691-T-24-MAP, 2014 WL 4983912, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 

6, 2014)); QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 688 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (“[A]

Rule 30(b)(6) witness need not have personal knowledge of the designated subject matter.”). 

While Aspen may be correct in arguing that PCF may, depending on the circumstances, be 

bound to at least some extent by testimony previously given by Mr. Philliou during PCF’s Rule 

30(b)(6) depositions, see, e.g., QBE Ins. Corp., 277 F.R.D. at 690; Reed v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Ltd., No. 19-24668-CIV, 2021 WL 4990902, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2021), Aspen 

has failed to establish—at least at this point—that Ms. Ganguly’s trial testimony would run afoul 

of any binding testimonial limitations established by those Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. On this 

record and at this stage of the proceedings, there is simply an insufficient basis to exclude Ms. 

Ganguly from testifying at trial. However, if PCF should seek to introduce testimony from Ms. 

Ganguly at trial that Aspen believes should properly be excluded because it runs afoul of binding 

Case 1:22-cv-22707-DSL Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2024 Page 4 of 5
5

positions and testimony provided by PCF in its Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, then Aspen’s remedy 

will be to object at that time to that specific testimony. On the current record, however, Aspen’s 

in limine request to exclude Ms. Ganguly as a witness is premature.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Aspen’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Witness from 

Testifying at Trial (ECF No. 65) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Aspen, however, is not 

precluded by this Order from raising contemporaneous Rule 30(b)(6)-based objections at trial to 

specific testimony offered by PCF through Ms. Ganguly.

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida this 12th day of April 2024. 

___________________________________ 

EDUARDO I. SANCHEZ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: Hon. David S. Leibowitz

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-22707-DSL Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2024 Page 5 of 5