Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Blue Flame Medical v. Chain Bridge — Plaintiff's Objections to Deposition Designations

Blue Flame Medical v. Chain Bridge — Plaintiff's Objections to Deposition Designations

Date
2021-04-29

Summary

Plaintiff Blue Flame Medical LLC's objections to the deposition designations of Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., John J. Brough, David M. Evinger and third-party defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., filed April 29, 2021 as Document 107 in Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The objections respond to the defendants' witness list (ECF No. 94) and JPMC's pretrial disclosures (ECF No. 91). The plaintiff objects to deposition testimony from any witness who is not unavailable and reserves the right to object once specific portions are designated. A table lists twelve deposition witnesses, including corporate designees of the California State Controller's Office and JPMC, with objections under Fed. R. Evid. 106 to incomplete portions and, for the corporate designees, to testimony beyond the designated topics.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD         Document 107        Filed 04/29/21      Page 1 of 5 PageID# 842




                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
                                    Alexandria Division

                                               )
  BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC                       )
                                               )
                 Plaintiff,                    )
                                               )
  v.                                           )      Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658
                                               )
  CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A.,                     )      The Honorable Leonie Brinkema
  JOHN J. BROUGH, and                          )
  DAVID M. EVINGER,                            )
                                               )
                 Defendants.                   )
                                               )
                                               )
  CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A.                      )
                                               )
                 Third-Party Plaintiff,        )
                                               )
  v.                                           )
                                               )
  JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.                    )
                                               )
                 Third-Party Defendant.        )
                                               )

          PLAINTIFF BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO
     DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A. AND
   DEFENDANTS JOHN J. BROUGH AND DAVID M. EVINGER AND THIRD-PARTY
        DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S RULE 26(a)(3)(A)(ii)
   DESIGNATIONS OF WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONY IS TO BE PRESENTED BY
                             DEPOSITION

         Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(B) and 32(a), Plaintiff Blue Flame

  Medical LLC ("Plaintiff") respectfully submits the following objections to (1) the Witness List of

  Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Chain Bridge Bank, N.A. ("Chain Bridge") and Defendants John

  J. Brough and David M. Evinger (collectively with Chain Bridge, "Defendants”) (ECF No. 94),

  which identifies certain witness testimony that Defendants may seek to present through designated
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD           Document 107           Filed 04/29/21     Page 2 of 5 PageID# 843




  depositions and otherwise reserves the right to introduce deposition testimony in place of live

  testimony, and (2) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("JPMC") Pretrial Disclosures Concerning

  Witnesses (ECF No. 91), in which JPMC reserves the right to call witnesses by deposition.

         These objections are made based on information reasonably available to Plaintiff at this

  time and stage of the proceedings. As additional information becomes available, Plaintiff reserves

  the right to supplement, revise, waive, or otherwise amend these objections, including through

  motions in limine and in light of any rulings thereupon. As the parties have not yet designated

  specific portions of depositions to be presented at trial, Plaintiff reserves the right to object to any

  grounds to any such portions designated by Defendants and/or JPMC. Further, given that both

  Defendants and JPMC have reserved the right to call additional witnesses by deposition to the

  extent a witness’s circumstances change or a witness becomes unavailable for trial, Plaintiff further

  reserves the right to object to any such additional witnesses that Defendants or JPMC may so

  designate. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a), Plaintiff objects to Defendants and/or

  JPMC presenting witness testimony by deposition to the extent that any designated witness is not

  unavailable.

       Witness Whose Testimony May Be                                     Objection
           Presented by Deposition
   Ethan Bearman (January 21, 2021)              Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                                 incomplete portions of Mr. Bearman's
                                                 deposition that may confuse the issues or
                                                 mislead the jury as to his testimony.
   California State Controller's Office 30(b)(6) Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
   (Richard Chivaro) (March 4, 2021)             incomplete portions of Mr. Chivaro's Rule
                                                 30(b)(6) deposition that may confuse the issues
                                                 or mislead the jury as to his testimony.

                                                         Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6): Plaintiff objects to
                                                         any testimony that exceeds the scope of the
                                                         Rule 30(b)(6) topics designated for this
                                                         deposition.


                                                     2
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD       Document 107        Filed 04/29/21      Page 3 of 5 PageID# 844




      Witness Whose Testimony May Be                                Objection
           Presented by Deposition
   Timothy Coffey (February 11, 2021)       Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                            incomplete portions of Mr. Coffey's deposition
                                            that may confuse the issues or mislead the jury
                                            as to his testimony.
   Natalie Gonzales (January 28, 2021)      Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                            incomplete portions of Ms. Gonzales's
                                            deposition that may confuse the issues or
                                            mislead the jury as to her testimony.
   Michael Gula (January 12, 2021)          Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                            incomplete portions of Mr. Gula's deposition
                                            that may confuse the issues or mislead the
                                            jury as to his testimony.
   Daniel Kim (March 29, 2021)              Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                            incomplete portions of Mr. Kim's deposition
                                            that may confuse the issues or mislead the jury
                                            as to his testimony.
   Rakesh Korpal/JPMC 30(b)(6) (February 9, Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
   2021)                                    incomplete portions of Mr. Korpal's individual
                                            and/or Rule 30(b)(6) deposition that may
                                            confuse the issues or mislead the jury as to his
                                            testimony.

                                                  Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6): Plaintiff objects to
                                                  testimony that exceeds the scope of the Rule
                                                  30(b)(6) topics designated for this deposition.
   Mathew Littman (April 12, 2021)                Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                                  incomplete portions of Mr. Littman's
                                                  deposition that may confuse the issues or
                                                  mislead the jury as to his testimony.
   Stephanie Smith (April 12, 2021)               Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                                  incomplete portions of Ms. Smith's deposition
                                                  that may confuse the issues or mislead the
                                                  jury as to her testimony.
   Andrew Sturmfels (February 10, 2021)           Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                                  incomplete portions of Mr. Sturmfels's
                                                  deposition that may confuse the issues or
                                                  mislead the jury as to his testimony.
   John Thomas (January 11, 2021)                 Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                                  incomplete portions of Mr. Thomas's
                                                  deposition that may confuse the issues or
                                                  mislead the jury as to his testimony.
   Michael Wong (January 19, 2021)                Fed. R. Evid. 106: Plaintiff objects to any
                                                  incomplete portions of Mr. Wong's deposition
                                                  that may confuse the issues or mislead the
                                                  jury as to his testimony.

                                              3
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD   Document 107   Filed 04/29/21    Page 4 of 5 PageID# 845




   Dated: April 29, 2021                Respectfully submitted,

                                        /s/ Peter H. White
                                        Peter H. White (VA Bar No. 32310)
                                        Jason T. Mitchell (pro hac vice)
                                        Gregory Ketcham-Colwill (pro hac vice)
                                        SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
                                        901 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800
                                        Washington, DC 20005
                                        Tel.: (202) 729-7476
                                        Fax: (202) 730-4520
                                        pete.white@srz.com
                                        jason.mitchell@srz.com
                                        gregory.ketcham-colwill@srz.com

                                        William H. Gussman, Jr. (pro hac vice)
                                        Steven R. Fisher (pro hac vice)
                                        SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
                                        919 Third Avenue
                                        New York, New York 10022
                                        Tel.: (212) 756-2044
                                        Fax: (212) 593-5955
                                        bill.gussman@srz.com
                                        steven.fisher@srz.com

                                        Counsel for Plaintiff Blue Flame Medical LLC




                                       4
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD            Document 107          Filed 04/29/21     Page 5 of 5 PageID# 846




                                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

                  I hereby certify that on this 29th day of April, 2021, I caused the foregoing document

  to be filed and served electronically using the Court's CM/ECF system, which automatically sent

  a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.


  Dated: April 29, 2021                                     /s/ Peter H. White
                                                            Peter H. White, Esq. (VSB# 32310)
                                                            SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
                                                            901 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800
                                                            Washington, DC 20005
                                                            Tel: 202-729-7476
                                                            Fax: 202-730-4520
                                                            peter.white@srz.com

                                                            Counsel for Plaintiff Blue Flame Medical
                                                            LLC


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.107.0.pdf
Size
151,291 bytes
SHA-256
e19d305bcc360e33c8095165de6e814b071b304a11b525d55cf503c2aec5f2ca
Our copy
gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.107.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top