`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`14cv0111
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER OF COURT RE: OBJECTIONS TO DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION EXCERPTS
`(DOC. NOS. 326-329)
`
`Presently before this Court are designations of excerpts from the following depositions: (1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 10, 2014, 30(b)(6) deposition of Bruce Ding; (2) individual deposition of Bruce Ding on
`
`September 11, 2014; (3) individual deposition of Diane Lee on September 12, 2014; and (4) February 6,
`
`2015 deposition of James Foley. The Parties have lodged objections to portions of the depositions of
`
`Ding (September 11, 2014), Lee, and Foley. There are no objections to Ding’s September 10, 2014
`
`deposition transcript. Counsel have provided the Court with unredacted copies of the transcripts of these
`
`depositions, which enables the Court to rule on the Parties’ objections to deposition designations.
`
`
`
`AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1. Plaintiff’s objection to the identified portion of Ding’s September 11, 2014 deposition (Doc. No.
`327), is SUSTAINED based upon this Court’s prior rulings;
`
`2. The following objections to designations of the September 12, 2015 deposition of Diane Lee
`(Doc. No. 328) are SUSTAINED:
`
`a. 12:22-13:8 (Plaintiff’s counter-designation)
`
`b. 68:20-69:3;
`
`c. 69:15-19; 69:23-24; 70:7-8; 70:12-16; 71:2-14; 71:16-20; 71:22-23; 72:18-19; 72:21-73:8;
`73:14-15; 73:17-75:1; 75:7-9; 75:11-12 and 15-17; 75:19-25;76:8-10; 76:12-13;
`
`d. 86:2-13; and
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 336 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 2
`
`e. 105:20-106:14, 16,19-24 (Plaintiff’s counter-designation); 107:6-17 (The Court encourages
`the Parties to stipulate as to the reason Lee is appearing via deposition)
`
`3. As identified by the Parties, Defendants may not introduce any designated excerpts that are
`impacted by the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. No. 287) unless given
`leave to do so by the Court.
`
`4. The following objections to designations of the February 6, 2015 deposition of James Foley (Doc.
`No. 329-1) are OVERRULED:
`
`a. 7:9-8:2;
`
`b. 47:25-49:19 (excluding 48:12-13; 49:9-17);
`
`c. 49:20-50:14 (excluding 49:22; 50:5-9);
`
`d. 54:14-21;
`
`e. 60:24-61:7;
`
`f. 70:25-71:12 (excluding 71:3); and
`
`g. 86:3-18 (excluding 86:11)
`
`5. If the depositions will be presented through video, the Parties shall edit the videotaped
`depositions in accordance with these rulings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Arthur J. Schwab
`Arthur J. Schwab
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`cc:
`
`All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties
`
`2
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
