Preview
No. DC-09-14447-C
J&L PUBLISHING, LLC d/b/a
RIO GRANDE VALLEY KIDS’
DIRECTORY, LULU HANKE, and
JOHN HANKE,
i
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
top =
aN
VS.
HIDDEN VALUES, INC.,
JAMES CROFFORD, JR.,
JAMES CROFFORD III, and
JOSHUA CROFFORD.
OD WOR 4D 80D LOD COP COD LOD COD LOD LO?
68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
Defendants Hidden Values, Inc., James Crofford, Jr., James Crofford If, and Joshua
Crofford object to Plaintiffs’ Deposition Designations as follows:
1. Elizabeth Wehner
2.
Designated testimony
Objection
p. 13,1. 23—p. 14,1.8
Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 14,8. 21-p.15,1.1
Hearsay, relevance, lack of personal
knowledge
p. 15, 1.13 -—p. 16, 1.4 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice
p- 17, L. 10 -p. 18, 1.4 Hearsay
p. 24, I. 24—p. 25, 1.9 Relevance
p. 28, |. 11—p. 28, 1. 25 Relevance
p. 30, I. 20—p. 31, 1.2 Relevance, speculation, lack of personal
knowledge
p. 32, 1. 2—p. 32, 1.14 Hearsay
p. 41,1. 1- p. 41, 1.5 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 54, I. 21— p. 55, 1. 10 Leading, improper bolstering of witness
credibility
Sonia Garza
Designated testimony Objection
p. 12,1. 11—p. 12, 1.14 Relevance
. 14,1, 22-p. 15, 1.1 Relevance
p. 15, 1. 23 - p. 16, 1.8 Relevance
p..17, 1.3 —p.17,1.8 Hearsay, relevance
p. 19, 1. 11—p. 21, 1.10 Relevance
p. 25, 1. 6—p. 28, 1.4 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE 1Designated testimony
Objection
p. 28, 1.9—p. 30,1.9
Relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 30,1. 22—p.31, 1.12
Relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 31, L. 18 - p. 32, 1.23 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 33, 1.5 -p. 33, 1.10 Relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 34, 1. 13 — p. 34, 1.16 Relevance
p. 35, 1.13 -p. 36,15 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues
p. 37, |. 4—p. 37, 1. 25
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues
p. 38, 1. 11—p. 38, 1. 13 Relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 38, 1. 17 - p. 40, 1. 15 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 41, 1.5 —p. 41, 1.12 Relevance, nonresponsive, unfair prejudice
p. 41, 1. 16 ~ p. 41, 1. 23 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 101, 1.5 -—p. 101, 1.11 Hearsay, relevance
p. 116, 1. 25 — p. 117, 1.5 Hearsay, relevance
p. 46, 1. 12 — p. 47, 1.3 Relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 47, 1.4—p. 47, 1.7 Lack of foundation, relevance
p. 48, 1.6 —p. 48, 1.17 Relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 48, 1.25 — p. 49, 1.8 Relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 51, 1. 7-p. 52, 1.12 Hearsay
p. 53, |. 7—p. 53, 1. 16 Hearsay
p. 53, |. 17 - p. 53, 1. 20 Relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 55, 1.5 —p.55, 1.17 Hearsay
p. 77, 1.12- a 78, 1.2 Relevance, unfair prejudice, non-responsive
p. 97, 1. 8—p. 97, 1. 21 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues, hearsay
p. 105, |. 16 — p. 106, 1. 15
Relevance
p. 118, 1. 7—p. 118, |. 21
Leading, improper bolstering of witness
credibility
p. 65, 1. 24—p. 66, 1. 1
Leading, improper bolstering of witness
credibility
3. James Alexander
Designated testimony Objection
p. 14, 1. 23—p. 14, 1. 25 Hearsay
p. 16,1. 17—p. 16,1. 19
Non-responsive, speculation, legal
conclusion, Jack of foundation,
undesignated expert opinion
. 17, 1.23 —p. 18, 1. i Hearsay
p. 18, 1.5 -p. 18, 1.11 Hearsay, relevance
p. 21, 1. 12—p. 22, 1.7 Relevance, hearsay
p. 22, 1.19 -p. 22, 1.21 Speculation, lack of foundation
p. 23, |. 12 ~ p. 23, 1. 22 Hearsay, relevance
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS — PAGE 24.
5.
Designated testimony
Objection
p. 32, 1.7—p. 33,1.7
Hearsay, relevance
p. 26, 1. 13 — p. 26, 1. 25
Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 27, 1. 16— p. 27, 1. 23
Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 28, t.4—p. 28, 1.7 Hearsay, relevance
p. 28, 1. 12 — p. 28, 1,21 Hearsay, relevance
p. 29, 1. 13 — p. 29, 1. 15 Hearsay, relevance
p. 30, 1. 2—p. 30,16 Hearsay, relevance
p. 33, 1. 24 ~ p. 34, 1. 16 Hearsay, relevance
Susan Valverde
Rachel
Designated testimony
Objection
p.17,L 11—p. 19, 1. 16
Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues
8
Relevance, confusion of the issues
Relevance, confusion of the issues
5
1
Relevance, confusion of the issues
2—p. 23,1
.3-p. 27,1.
8—p. 27,1.
.15—p. 2
Leading, relevance, confusion of the issues
4
7, 1.25
= p. 30, 1. 12
Relevance, confusion of the issues
Relevance, confusion of the issues
T=p. 30,
-17—p. 31,1. 11
-18—p. 31,1
, 1.24
Relevance, confusion of the issues, lack of
personal knowledge
p. 32, L 15—p. 33,1. 18
Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues,
unfair prejudice
p. 35, |. 6 —p. 36, 1. 12 Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues
p. 45, 1. 20-p. 46, 15 Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues
p. 53, 1. 14-p. 53, 1.21 Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues
p. 58, 1. 2—p. 58, 1. 22 Lack of personal knowledge, relevance,
confusion of the issues
p. 64, 1. 25 — p. 65, 1. 13
Relevance, confusion of the issues, unfair
prejudice
p. 62, 1. 8—p. 62, 1. 18
Leading, improper bolstering of witness
credibility
Montgomery
Designated testimony Objection
p. 13,1. 24—p. 14, 1.4 Relevance
p. 14, 1. 14-p. 14, 1.21 Relevance
p. 14, 1. 25 —p. 16,1.9 Relevance
p. 17, 1. 24 -p. 18, 1.24
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues
p. 21, |. 18—p. 22, 1. 25
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues
p- 23, 1. 24 —p. 24, 1. 23
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS — PAGE3Barton
Designated testimony
Objection
the issues
p. 26,1. 5—p. 28, 1.4
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues
p. 28,1. 5—p. 28, 1.6
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues, leading
p. 28, 1. 11 —p. 29, 1.7
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues
p. 29, 1. 22—p. 30, 1 19
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues, speculation, leading
p. 30, 1. 22—p. 31,1. 15
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues, speculation, leading
p. 35, |. 18 — p. 36, I. 20
Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, leading
p. 38,1. 7—p. 39, L 17
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues, leading
p. 39, 23 —p. 40,1. 14
Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, speculation, leading
p.40, 1. 15 —p. 40, 1. 23
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues, leading
p-41,1.5—p.4i,1.13
Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, speculation, leading
p. 61, 1. 10-p. 62, 1.17
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues
p. 63, 1. 15 — p. 64, 1. 16
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues
p. 91,1. 13—p. 92, 1.5
Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues
p. 92, |. 6—p. 92,1. 20
Leading, improper bolstering of witness
credibility
C. Stephens
Designated testimony Objection
p.5,1.12-p.5, 1.14 Relevance
p. 6, 1. 15 —p. 6,1. 18 Relevance
p. 27, 1.7 -p. 27, 1.15 Relevance
. 28, 1. 7 — p. 28, 1. 23 Relevance
p. 40, l. 1—p. 40, 1.15 Relevance, unfair prejudice
p. 48, 1. 6 — p. 48, 1. 25 Relevance
p.49, 1, 1-—p. 49, 1.24 Relevance
p. 65, 1. 16 -p. 65,1. 25 Relevance
p. 66, 1. 1 — p. 66, I. 12 Relevance, unfair prejudice
_p. 71, 1, 11 —p. 71, 1.17 Relevance, hearsay
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE 4Designated testimony Objection
p. 3, 1.3 —p. 3,1. 13 Relevance, hearsay
p. 4,1. 9~p. 4, 1. 25 Relevance
p. 5,1. 1—p.5, 1.25 Relevance, hearsay
p.6,1.1—p.6,1.7 Relevance, hearsay
p. 16, 1. 1—p. 16, 1. 15 Relevance
p. 16,1. 21-p. 16, 1. 25 Relevance
p.17,1.1—p.17, 1.7 Relevance
p. 18, 1.4—p. 18, 1.20 Relevance, unfair prejudice, hearsay
p. 20, 1. 1—p. 20, 1.4 Relevance, hearsay
p. 20, 1. 14 -p. 20, 1. 18 Relevance, hearsay
p. 24, 1. 1-p. 24, 1.25 Unfair prejudice
p. 25, 1. 1—p. 25, 1.4 Unfair prejudice
7. Kathleen G. Faktor
Designated testimony Objection
p.13, 1. 1-p. 13, 1. 25 Relevance
p. 14, 1. 1-p. 14, 1.25 Relevance
p. 43, 1. 9-p. 43, 1.19 Relevance
(AEQ)
p. 45, 1. 2—p. 45, 1. 10 Relevance, hearsay
(AEO)
p. 91, 1. 2-p. 91, 1.25 Relevance
p. 92,1. 1-p. 92, 1.6 Relevance
p. 284, 1. 23 — p. 284, 1.25 | Relevance
p. 285, 1. 1— p. 285, 1. 25 Relevance
. 286, 1. 1 — p. 286, 1.5 Relevance
p. 288, 1. 10 — p. 288, 1.19 | Relevance
p. 27, |. 20- p. 27, 1.24 Relevance
(AEO)
p. 29, 1. 1—p. 29, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
(AEQ)
p. 30, I. 14—p. 30, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
(AEO)
p. 33, 1. 25 (AEO)
Relevance, hearsay
p. 34,1. 1—p. 34,1. 24
(AEO)
Relevance, hearsay
p.59,1.1—p.59,L6
(AEO)
Relevance
p. 36,13—p. 36,15
(AEO)
Relevance
p. 23, 1. 4—-p. 23, 1.10
(AEO)
Relevance, hearsay
p. 120, 1. 5—p. 120, 1. 25
Relevance
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE 5Designated testimony Objection
|p. 121, 1. 1-p. 121, 1.12 Relevance
p. 258, I. 1 — p. 258, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
p. 259, 1. 1— p. 259, 1. 13 Relevance, hearsay
p. 261, 1. 10-p. 261, 1.25 _| Relevance, hearsay
| p. 262, 1. 1 — p. 262, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
p. 263, 1. 1— p. 263, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
p. 264, 1. 1 — p. 264, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
—p. 265, 1. 17 Relevance, hearsay
266, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
. 14—p. 267, 1.25 | Relevance, hearsay
1
9-p.
267, |. 1 — p. 267, 1.7 Relevance, hearsay
1
1
—p. 268, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
269, 1, 1 — p. 269, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
270, 1, 1—p. 270, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
. 271, 1. 24-p. 271, 1.25 | Relevance, hearsay
. 272, 1. 1 —p. 272, 1.25 Relevance, hearsay
. 273, 1. 1~ p. 273, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay
. 274, |. 1—p. 274, 1.17 Relevance
Respectfully submitted,
Dian Corey
Steven L. Russell
State Bar No. 17437040
Michael C. Wright
State Bar No. 22049807
17855 Dallas Parkway, Suite 195
Dallas, Texas 75287
(972) 267-8400 (office)
(972) 267-8401 (fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the
following counsel of record by fax on October 3, 2011:
Dawn Estes
Taber Estes Thorne & Carr, PLLC
3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75219
Fax # 214-599-4099 Rares
Steven L. Russell
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE7
Preview
No. DC-09-14447-C J&L PUBLISHING, LLC d/b/a RIO GRANDE VALLEY KIDS’ DIRECTORY, LULU HANKE, and JOHN HANKE, i IN THE DISTRICT COURT top = aN VS. HIDDEN VALUES, INC., JAMES CROFFORD, JR., JAMES CROFFORD III, and JOSHUA CROFFORD. OD WOR 4D 80D LOD COP COD LOD COD LOD LO? 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS Defendants Hidden Values, Inc., James Crofford, Jr., James Crofford If, and Joshua Crofford object to Plaintiffs’ Deposition Designations as follows: 1. Elizabeth Wehner 2. Designated testimony Objection p. 13,1. 23—p. 14,1.8 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice p. 14,8. 21-p.15,1.1 Hearsay, relevance, lack of personal knowledge p. 15, 1.13 -—p. 16, 1.4 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice p- 17, L. 10 -p. 18, 1.4 Hearsay p. 24, I. 24—p. 25, 1.9 Relevance p. 28, |. 11—p. 28, 1. 25 Relevance p. 30, I. 20—p. 31, 1.2 Relevance, speculation, lack of personal knowledge p. 32, 1. 2—p. 32, 1.14 Hearsay p. 41,1. 1- p. 41, 1.5 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice p. 54, I. 21— p. 55, 1. 10 Leading, improper bolstering of witness credibility Sonia Garza Designated testimony Objection p. 12,1. 11—p. 12, 1.14 Relevance . 14,1, 22-p. 15, 1.1 Relevance p. 15, 1. 23 - p. 16, 1.8 Relevance p..17, 1.3 —p.17,1.8 Hearsay, relevance p. 19, 1. 11—p. 21, 1.10 Relevance p. 25, 1. 6—p. 28, 1.4 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE 1Designated testimony Objection p. 28, 1.9—p. 30,1.9 Relevance, unfair prejudice p. 30,1. 22—p.31, 1.12 Relevance, unfair prejudice p. 31, L. 18 - p. 32, 1.23 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice p. 33, 1.5 -p. 33, 1.10 Relevance, unfair prejudice p. 34, 1. 13 — p. 34, 1.16 Relevance p. 35, 1.13 -p. 36,15 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues p. 37, |. 4—p. 37, 1. 25 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues p. 38, 1. 11—p. 38, 1. 13 Relevance, unfair prejudice p. 38, 1. 17 - p. 40, 1. 15 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice p. 41, 1.5 —p. 41, 1.12 Relevance, nonresponsive, unfair prejudice p. 41, 1. 16 ~ p. 41, 1. 23 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice p. 101, 1.5 -—p. 101, 1.11 Hearsay, relevance p. 116, 1. 25 — p. 117, 1.5 Hearsay, relevance p. 46, 1. 12 — p. 47, 1.3 Relevance, unfair prejudice p. 47, 1.4—p. 47, 1.7 Lack of foundation, relevance p. 48, 1.6 —p. 48, 1.17 Relevance, unfair prejudice p. 48, 1.25 — p. 49, 1.8 Relevance, unfair prejudice p. 51, 1. 7-p. 52, 1.12 Hearsay p. 53, |. 7—p. 53, 1. 16 Hearsay p. 53, |. 17 - p. 53, 1. 20 Relevance, unfair prejudice p. 55, 1.5 —p.55, 1.17 Hearsay p. 77, 1.12- a 78, 1.2 Relevance, unfair prejudice, non-responsive p. 97, 1. 8—p. 97, 1. 21 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, hearsay p. 105, |. 16 — p. 106, 1. 15 Relevance p. 118, 1. 7—p. 118, |. 21 Leading, improper bolstering of witness credibility p. 65, 1. 24—p. 66, 1. 1 Leading, improper bolstering of witness credibility 3. James Alexander Designated testimony Objection p. 14, 1. 23—p. 14, 1. 25 Hearsay p. 16,1. 17—p. 16,1. 19 Non-responsive, speculation, legal conclusion, Jack of foundation, undesignated expert opinion . 17, 1.23 —p. 18, 1. i Hearsay p. 18, 1.5 -p. 18, 1.11 Hearsay, relevance p. 21, 1. 12—p. 22, 1.7 Relevance, hearsay p. 22, 1.19 -p. 22, 1.21 Speculation, lack of foundation p. 23, |. 12 ~ p. 23, 1. 22 Hearsay, relevance DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS — PAGE 24. 5. Designated testimony Objection p. 32, 1.7—p. 33,1.7 Hearsay, relevance p. 26, 1. 13 — p. 26, 1. 25 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice p. 27, 1. 16— p. 27, 1. 23 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice p. 28, t.4—p. 28, 1.7 Hearsay, relevance p. 28, 1. 12 — p. 28, 1,21 Hearsay, relevance p. 29, 1. 13 — p. 29, 1. 15 Hearsay, relevance p. 30, 1. 2—p. 30,16 Hearsay, relevance p. 33, 1. 24 ~ p. 34, 1. 16 Hearsay, relevance Susan Valverde Rachel Designated testimony Objection p.17,L 11—p. 19, 1. 16 Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues 8 Relevance, confusion of the issues Relevance, confusion of the issues 5 1 Relevance, confusion of the issues 2—p. 23,1 .3-p. 27,1. 8—p. 27,1. .15—p. 2 Leading, relevance, confusion of the issues 4 7, 1.25 = p. 30, 1. 12 Relevance, confusion of the issues Relevance, confusion of the issues T=p. 30, -17—p. 31,1. 11 -18—p. 31,1 , 1.24 Relevance, confusion of the issues, lack of personal knowledge p. 32, L 15—p. 33,1. 18 Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues, unfair prejudice p. 35, |. 6 —p. 36, 1. 12 Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues p. 45, 1. 20-p. 46, 15 Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues p. 53, 1. 14-p. 53, 1.21 Hearsay, relevance, confusion of the issues p. 58, 1. 2—p. 58, 1. 22 Lack of personal knowledge, relevance, confusion of the issues p. 64, 1. 25 — p. 65, 1. 13 Relevance, confusion of the issues, unfair prejudice p. 62, 1. 8—p. 62, 1. 18 Leading, improper bolstering of witness credibility Montgomery Designated testimony Objection p. 13,1. 24—p. 14, 1.4 Relevance p. 14, 1. 14-p. 14, 1.21 Relevance p. 14, 1. 25 —p. 16,1.9 Relevance p. 17, 1. 24 -p. 18, 1.24 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues p. 21, |. 18—p. 22, 1. 25 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues p- 23, 1. 24 —p. 24, 1. 23 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS — PAGE3Barton Designated testimony Objection the issues p. 26,1. 5—p. 28, 1.4 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues p. 28,1. 5—p. 28, 1.6 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, leading p. 28, 1. 11 —p. 29, 1.7 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues p. 29, 1. 22—p. 30, 1 19 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, speculation, leading p. 30, 1. 22—p. 31,1. 15 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, speculation, leading p. 35, |. 18 — p. 36, I. 20 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, leading p. 38,1. 7—p. 39, L 17 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, leading p. 39, 23 —p. 40,1. 14 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, speculation, leading p.40, 1. 15 —p. 40, 1. 23 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, leading p-41,1.5—p.4i,1.13 Hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, speculation, leading p. 61, 1. 10-p. 62, 1.17 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues p. 63, 1. 15 — p. 64, 1. 16 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues p. 91,1. 13—p. 92, 1.5 Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues p. 92, |. 6—p. 92,1. 20 Leading, improper bolstering of witness credibility C. Stephens Designated testimony Objection p.5,1.12-p.5, 1.14 Relevance p. 6, 1. 15 —p. 6,1. 18 Relevance p. 27, 1.7 -p. 27, 1.15 Relevance . 28, 1. 7 — p. 28, 1. 23 Relevance p. 40, l. 1—p. 40, 1.15 Relevance, unfair prejudice p. 48, 1. 6 — p. 48, 1. 25 Relevance p.49, 1, 1-—p. 49, 1.24 Relevance p. 65, 1. 16 -p. 65,1. 25 Relevance p. 66, 1. 1 — p. 66, I. 12 Relevance, unfair prejudice _p. 71, 1, 11 —p. 71, 1.17 Relevance, hearsay ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE 4Designated testimony Objection p. 3, 1.3 —p. 3,1. 13 Relevance, hearsay p. 4,1. 9~p. 4, 1. 25 Relevance p. 5,1. 1—p.5, 1.25 Relevance, hearsay p.6,1.1—p.6,1.7 Relevance, hearsay p. 16, 1. 1—p. 16, 1. 15 Relevance p. 16,1. 21-p. 16, 1. 25 Relevance p.17,1.1—p.17, 1.7 Relevance p. 18, 1.4—p. 18, 1.20 Relevance, unfair prejudice, hearsay p. 20, 1. 1—p. 20, 1.4 Relevance, hearsay p. 20, 1. 14 -p. 20, 1. 18 Relevance, hearsay p. 24, 1. 1-p. 24, 1.25 Unfair prejudice p. 25, 1. 1—p. 25, 1.4 Unfair prejudice 7. Kathleen G. Faktor Designated testimony Objection p.13, 1. 1-p. 13, 1. 25 Relevance p. 14, 1. 1-p. 14, 1.25 Relevance p. 43, 1. 9-p. 43, 1.19 Relevance (AEQ) p. 45, 1. 2—p. 45, 1. 10 Relevance, hearsay (AEO) p. 91, 1. 2-p. 91, 1.25 Relevance p. 92,1. 1-p. 92, 1.6 Relevance p. 284, 1. 23 — p. 284, 1.25 | Relevance p. 285, 1. 1— p. 285, 1. 25 Relevance . 286, 1. 1 — p. 286, 1.5 Relevance p. 288, 1. 10 — p. 288, 1.19 | Relevance p. 27, |. 20- p. 27, 1.24 Relevance (AEO) p. 29, 1. 1—p. 29, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay (AEQ) p. 30, I. 14—p. 30, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay (AEO) p. 33, 1. 25 (AEO) Relevance, hearsay p. 34,1. 1—p. 34,1. 24 (AEO) Relevance, hearsay p.59,1.1—p.59,L6 (AEO) Relevance p. 36,13—p. 36,15 (AEO) Relevance p. 23, 1. 4—-p. 23, 1.10 (AEO) Relevance, hearsay p. 120, 1. 5—p. 120, 1. 25 Relevance DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE 5Designated testimony Objection |p. 121, 1. 1-p. 121, 1.12 Relevance p. 258, I. 1 — p. 258, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay p. 259, 1. 1— p. 259, 1. 13 Relevance, hearsay p. 261, 1. 10-p. 261, 1.25 _| Relevance, hearsay | p. 262, 1. 1 — p. 262, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay p. 263, 1. 1— p. 263, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay p. 264, 1. 1 — p. 264, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay —p. 265, 1. 17 Relevance, hearsay 266, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay . 14—p. 267, 1.25 | Relevance, hearsay 1 9-p. 267, |. 1 — p. 267, 1.7 Relevance, hearsay 1 1 —p. 268, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay 269, 1, 1 — p. 269, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay 270, 1, 1—p. 270, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay . 271, 1. 24-p. 271, 1.25 | Relevance, hearsay . 272, 1. 1 —p. 272, 1.25 Relevance, hearsay . 273, 1. 1~ p. 273, 1. 25 Relevance, hearsay . 274, |. 1—p. 274, 1.17 Relevance Respectfully submitted, Dian Corey Steven L. Russell State Bar No. 17437040 Michael C. Wright State Bar No. 22049807 17855 Dallas Parkway, Suite 195 Dallas, Texas 75287 (972) 267-8400 (office) (972) 267-8401 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the following counsel of record by fax on October 3, 2011: Dawn Estes Taber Estes Thorne & Carr, PLLC 3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 Fax # 214-599-4099 Rares Steven L. Russell DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS - PAGE7