Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lewis v. Ikea Oregon, LLC

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 9, 2014

AMBER LEWIS, Plaintiff,
v.
IKEA OREGON, LLC, d/b/a IKEA U.S. WEST, INC., Defendant.

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO WITNESSES

JOHN V. ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge.

This order resolves Plaintiff Amber Lewis's ("Plaintiff") and Defendant IKEA Oregon LLC's ("Defendant") respective objections to each other's witnesses. The court also has issued a separate order containing its rulings on the parties' respective motions in limine. In the event of a conflict between this order and the court's ruling on the parties' motions in limine, the court's motion in limine rulings control.

Plaintiff's Witnesses

1. Virginia Dansey:

RULING: SUSTAINED.

Defendant contends that this witness's summary does not satisfy the part of the court's July 23, 2012, Jury Trial Management Order (Dkt. No. 47) ("JTMO") which describes the requirements for witness statements. The JTMO clearly and in detail states the requirements for each of the documents the parties must file in preparation for trial. Under subsection "b. Witness Lists and Statements, " the following requirement appears:

• Content: Provide a detailed statement of each witness's expected testimony. "Detailed statement" means more than a broad and vague summary of the witness's expected testimony or any part of it. Rather, set out with particularity the areas on which the witness is expected to testify and describe the substance of the witness's testimony. NOTE: This requirement will be strictly enforced by the court. Be inclusive and specific when describing the testimony the witness will give.

JTMO at 3.

Defendant correctly observes that Plaintiff's original summary for this witness, filed December 3, 2013, and consisting of a single sentence, does not meet this requirement. In response to Defendant's objection, Plaintiff filed a supplemental statement for Ms. Dansey on December 23, 2013 (Dkt. No. 84). In the supplemental statement, Plaintiff expands her summary to two sentences but increases from 15 minutes to one hour the time estimated for Ms. Dansey's direct testimony. Given the four-fold increase in time for this witness's testimony, the supplemental summary's addition of a single and somewhat more detailed summary is inadequate. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall supplement her summary for this witness no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 14, 2014.

2. Dr. Jordi Kellog:

RULING: SUSTAINED.

See Ruling on Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 71.

3. Robert Male, Ph.D.:

RULING: OVERRULED IN PART; ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.