CBB Witness Objection List_Draft (#5483017v1) - DB — Blue Flame Medical LLC v. Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., et al.
- Date
- 2021-04-29
Source document: CBB Witness Objection List_Draft (#5483017v1) - DB — Blue Flame Medical LLC v. Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., et al.; document type: Evidentiary objections (deposition designations).
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
(Alexandria Division)
BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A., JOHN J.
BROUGH, and DAVID M. EVINGER,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Third-Party Defendant.
DEFENDANTS’/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF BLUE
FLAME MEDICAL LLC 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), Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., and Defendants John J. Brough and David M. Evinger
(collectively, “Defendants”) submit the following objections to (1) Plaintiff Blue Flame Medical
LLC’s Witness List (ECF No. 92), which identifies certain witness testimony that Plaintiff may
seek to present through designated depositions and reserves the right to introduce deposition
testimony in place of live testimony, and (2) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s Pretrial Disclosures
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 108 Filed 04/29/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 847
2
Concerning Witnesses (ECF No. 91), in which JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. reserves the right to
call witnesses by deposition. Defendants reserve the right to supplement these objections,
including through motions in limine and in light of any rulings thereon. As the parties have not
yet designated specific portions of depositions to be presented at trial, Defendants further reserve
the right to object to specific portions of depositions designated for presentation at trial on any
grounds. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a), Defendants objects to Blue Flame Medical
LLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s designations to the extent that any designated witness is
not unavailable.
Witness Whose Testimony May Be
Presented by Deposition
Objection
Rakesh Korpal/JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(February 9, 2021)
Defendants object under Fed. R. Evid. 106 to
any 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. Defendants further object to
testimony that exceeds the scope of the Rule
30(b)(6) topics designated for this deposition.
California State Controller’s Office 30(b)(6)
(Richard Chivaro) (March 4, 2021)
Defendants object under Fed. R. Evid. 106 to
any incomplete portions of Mr. Chivaro’s Rule
30(b)(6) deposition that may confuse the issues
or mislead the jury as to his testimony.
Defendants further object to testimony that
exceeds the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) topics
designated for this deposition.
Natalie Gonzales (January 28, 2021)
Defendants object under Fed. R. Evid. 106 to
any incomplete portions of Ms. Gonzales’s
deposition that may confuse the issues or
mislead the jury as to her testimony.
Daniel Kim (March 29, 2021)
Defendants object under Fed. R. Evid. 106 to
any incomplete portions to Mr. Kim’s
deposition that may confuse the issues or
mislead the jury as to his testimony.
Andrew Sturmfels (February 10, 2021)
Defendants object under Fed. R. Evid. 106 to
any incomplete portions to Mr. Sturmfels’s
deposition that may confuse the issues or
mislead the jury as to his testimony.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 108 Filed 04/29/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 848
3
Michael Wong (January 19, 2021)
Defendants object under Fed. R. Evid. 106 to
any incomplete portions to Mr. Wong’s
deposition that may confuse the issues or
mislead the jury as to his testimony.
Henry Huang
To the extent Mr. Huang is deposed at a later
date, Defendants object under Fed. R. Evid.
106 to any incomplete portions to Mr. Huang’s
deposition that may confuse the issues or
mislead the jury as to his testimony.
Timothy Coffey (February 11, 2021)
Defendants object under Fed. R. Evid. 106 to
any incomplete portions to Mr. Coffey’s
deposition that may confuse the issues or
mislead the jury as to his testimony.
Stephanie Daily Smith (April 12, 2021)
Defendants object under Fed. R. Evid. 106 to
any incomplete portions to Ms. Smith’s
deposition that may confuse the issues or
mislead the jury as to her testimony.
Dated: April 29, 2021
/s/ Donald Burke
Donald Burke (VA Bar No. 76550)
ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK,
UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP
2000 K Street, NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 775-4500
Facsimile: (202) 775-4510
dburke@robbinsrussell.com
Counsel for Defendants
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 108 Filed 04/29/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 849
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 29, 2021, I will cause the foregoing to be served via email
to the following:
Peter H. White, Esq. (VA Bar No. 32310)
SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
901 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 729-7476
Fax: (202) 730-4520
Email: peter.white@srz.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
Meredith K. Loretta, Esq. (VA Bar No. 92369)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE &
DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (212) 663-6981
Email: meredith.loretta@wilmerhale.com
Counsel for Third-Party Defendant
/s/ Donald Burke
Donald Burke (VA Bar No. 76550)
ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK,
UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP
2000 K Street, NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 775-4500
Facsimile: (202) 775-4510
dburke@robbinsrussell.com
Counsel for Defendants
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 108 Filed 04/29/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 850File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.108.0.pdf
- Size
- 110,158 bytes
- SHA-256
- 2f9d4b019726d213a59252d9ba11467fc322415be0803de012610c4ac84dbdbf
- Original
- PACER (login required)