Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
12™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
TIBAR, LLC, TERESA CASE NO.: 2008 CA 18070
BASNIGHT and MICHAEL
A. BASNIGHT
Plaintiffs,
VS.
WILLIAMS, PARKER, HARRISON,
DIETZ & GETZEN, P.A., JOHN MOORE,
and TERRI COSTA,
Detendants.
ar eer —
/
PLAINTIFFS’ DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY EXPECTED TO BE READ INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
Plaintiffs’, TIBAR, THERESA BASNIGHT and MICHAEL A. BASNIGHT, intend to read
into evidence from the following depositions:
John Moore - August 19, 2010
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be
presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical
matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect
to read at the time of the trial m the action.
It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this Defendant live to testify at trial. Thus, the
Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the
transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testumony will actually be offered by the Defendant
at the time of trial. Thus, there ts the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the
deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 1 of 18
Tibar vy, Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18070
believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail
at the present time.
Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as
substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by the
Defendant at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present
as substantive evidence certain of the testrmony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the
position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the
testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will
consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court.
John Moore - September 1, 2011
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be
presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical
matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect
to read at the time of the trial in the action.
It 1s anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this Defendant live to testify at trial. Thus, the
Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the
transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by the Defendant
at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the
deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not
believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail
at the present time.
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 2 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18070
Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as
substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by the
Defendant at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present
as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the
position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the
testimony presented m the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will
consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court.
Ferri Costa - August 18, 2010
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be
presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical
matter the Plaintiffs are not abie to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect
to read at the tume of the trial in the action.
It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this Defendant live to testify at trial. Thus, the
Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the
transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by the Defendant
at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the
deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not
believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail
at the present time.
Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as
substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by the
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 3 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18070
Defendant at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present
as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the
position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the
testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will
consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court.
Terri Costa - September 1, 2011
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be
presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical
matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect
to read at the trme of the trial in the action.
It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this Defendant live to testify at trial. Thus, the
Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the
transcript. The Piaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by the Defendant
at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the
deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not
believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail
at the present time.
Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as
substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by the
Defendant at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present
as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the
4
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 4 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18070
position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the
testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will
consider the objections and let their position be made known toe the Defendants and to the Court.
Linda Getzen - February 2, 2011
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be
presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical
matter the Plaintifis are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect
to read at the time of the trial in the action.
It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this member of the Defendant Williams Parker
live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may
need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually
be offered by this member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. Thus, there is the
possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes,
and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential
impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time.
Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as
substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by this
member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the
Plaintiits may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire
transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and
objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 5of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18070
forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the
Defendants and to the Court.
Jeffrey Middlebooks - June 24, 2011
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be
presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical
matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect
to read at the time of the trial in the action.
It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this member of the Defendant Williams Parker
live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may
need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually
be offered by this member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. Thus, there is the
possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes,
and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential
impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time.
Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as
substantive evidence at the time of tnal depends in large part upon the testimony offered by this
member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the
Plaintiffs may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire
transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and
objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set
forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the
6
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 6 of 18
Tibar v, Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18070
Defendants and to the Court.
David Wallace - Jume 24, 2011
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be
presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical
matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect
to read at the time of the trial mm the action.
It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this member of the Defendant Williams Parker
live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may
need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually
be offered by this member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. Thus, there is the
possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes,
and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential
impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time.
Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as
substantive evidence at the time of trial depends tn large part upon the testimony offered by this
member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the
Plaintifts may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire
transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and
objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions, Upon the objections being set
forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the
Defendants and to the Court.
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 7 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18070
Radha Bachman - December 15, 2016
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be
presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical
matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect
to read at the time of the trial in the action.
It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will cal! this former attorney and agent of the Defendant
Williams Parker live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the
deposition, or may need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what
testimony will actually be offered by this former attorney and agent of the Defendant Williams
Parker at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions
of the deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not
believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail
at the present time.
Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as
substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by this
former attorney and agent of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. There is a distinct
possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony
set forth in the entire transcript. ‘Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to
identify any and objections to any of the testmony presented in the above depositions. Upon the
objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made
known to the Defendants and to the Court.
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 8 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18670
John Frost - September 21, 2011
Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Frost at the time of his deposition and
further based upon the Court’s rulings at the time of the hearings on the parties Motions for Limine
the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer any testimony at the
time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike the Expert testimony of this
Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering any expert testimony at the time of the trial, Until
the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike and/or this expert is offered at the time of trial
to testify it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate and predict what portions, if any, of this
experts deposition may need to be read at trial.
The Plaintiffs cannot predict ifthe Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify
at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial.
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented
and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the
Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary,
the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert.
Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this
deposition the Plamtiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a
decision. would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as
a designated expert to be cailed at the time of trial, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer
from this expert.
Thus, there ts the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 9 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18070
for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that
the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present
time.
Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions
of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the
Detendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at
the time of the trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either
rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript.
Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any
of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the
Plaintifis will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and
to the Court.
John Patterson - September 22, 2011
Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Patterson offered at the time of his
deposition the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer certain
testimony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike certain of the
Expert testimony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering certain expert testimony
at the time of the trial. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike and/or this expert
is offered at the time of trial to testify it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate and predict what
portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial.
The Plaintiffs cannot predict if the Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify
1Q
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 10 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18076
at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial.
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented
and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the
Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary,
the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert.
Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this
deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a
decision would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as
a designated expert to be called at the time of tnal, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer
from this expert.
Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition
for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that
the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present
time.
Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions
of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the
Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at
the time of the trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either
rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript.
Thus, it 1s the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any
of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the
1]
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 11 of 18
Tibar vy. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18076
Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and
to the Court.
Michael Briggs - September 23, 2011
Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Briggs offered at the time of his
deposition the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer all or
certain testimony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike all or
certain of the Expert testrmony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering all or certain
expert testimony at the time of the triai. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike
and/or this expert is offered at the time of trial to testify itis impossibie for the Plaintiffs to anticipate
and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial.
The Plaintiffs cannot predict if the Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify
at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial.
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented
and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. T his notice does not establish that the
Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary,
the Plaintiffs may elect fo read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert.
Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this
deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a
decision would be based in iarge part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as
a designated expert to be called at the time of trial, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer
from this expert.
12
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 12 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18079
Thus, there 1s the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition
for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that
the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present
time.
Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions
of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the
Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at
the time of the tnal. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either
rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript.
Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any
of the testimony presented m the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the
Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and
to the Court.
Charles Polk - September 11, 2011
Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Polk offered at the time of his
deposition the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer all or
certain testumony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motionto Strike all or
certain of the Expert testimony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering all or certain
expert testimony at the trme of the tnal. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike
and/or this expert is offered at the time of trial to testify itis impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate
and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial.
13
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 13 of 18
fibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18076
The Plaintiffs cannot predict ifthe Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify
at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial.
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented
and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the
Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary,
the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert.
Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this
deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at ali, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a
decision would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as
a designated expert to be called at the time of tnal, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer
from this expert.
Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition
for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that
the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present
time.
Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions
of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the
Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at
the time of the trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either
rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript.
Thus, itis the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any
14
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 14 of 18
fibar v. Williams, ef al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18070
of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the
Plaintiffs wili consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and
to the Court.
Stephen Oscher - September 23, 2011
Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Oscher offered at the time of his
deposition the Plaintiffs do not beheve that 1t would be appropriate for this expert to offer all or
certain testimony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike al] or
certain of the Expert testimony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering all or certain
expert testimony at the time of the trial. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike
and/or this expert is offered at the time of trial to testify it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate
and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial.
The Plaintiffs cannot predict if the Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify
at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial.
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented
and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the
Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary,
the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the yury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert.
Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this
deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a
decision would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as
a designated expert to be called at the time of trial, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer
15
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 15 of 18
Tibar vy. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18076
from this expert.
Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs wil! utilize certain portions of the deposition
for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that
the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present
tine.
Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions
of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the
Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at
the time of the trial. There ts a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either
rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript.
Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any
of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the
Piaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and
to the Court.
Ralph Moon ~ September 30, 2011
Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Moon offered at the time of his
deposition the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer all or
certain testimony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike all or
certain of the Expert testimony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering all or certain
expert testimony at the time of the trial. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike
and/or this expert 1s offered at the time of trial to testify itis impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate
16
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 16 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18670
and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial.
The Plaintiffs cannot predict ifthe Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify
at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial.
At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented
and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the
Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary,
the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert.
Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this
deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a
decision would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as
a designated expert to be called at the time of trial, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer
from this expert.
Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition
for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that
the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present
time.
Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions
of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the
Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at
the time of the trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either
rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript.
17
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 17 of 18
Tibar v. Williams, et al
Case No.: 2008 CA 18076
Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any
of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the
Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and
to the Court.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via
facsimile and U.S. Maii to: Jessica Kirkwood Alley & Lawrence P. Ingram, Esquire, Phelps Dunbar,
LLP. 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1900, Tampa, Florida 33602-5311, on this x day of
September, 2011.
SEIDEN, ALDER, & MATTHEWMAN, P.A.
7795 N.W. Beacon Square Bivd., Suite #201
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Teiephone: (561) 416-0170
Facsimile: Sf 561).4 6-017]cae? :
Matas
.
peor
cae
By Me ne
Wayne M. Alder
Florida Bar No. 850616
Andrew Seiden
Florida Bar No. 373672
W:\1219.601\Pleadings\Plaintiffs Deposition Designations AS 1 .wpd
18
Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 18 of 18
Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 12™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA TIBAR, LLC, TERESA CASE NO.: 2008 CA 18070 BASNIGHT and MICHAEL A. BASNIGHT Plaintiffs, VS. WILLIAMS, PARKER, HARRISON, DIETZ & GETZEN, P.A., JOHN MOORE, and TERRI COSTA, Detendants. ar eer — / PLAINTIFFS’ DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY EXPECTED TO BE READ INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL Plaintiffs’, TIBAR, THERESA BASNIGHT and MICHAEL A. BASNIGHT, intend to read into evidence from the following depositions: John Moore - August 19, 2010 At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect to read at the time of the trial m the action. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this Defendant live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testumony will actually be offered by the Defendant at the time of trial. Thus, there ts the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 1 of 18 Tibar vy, Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18070 believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by the Defendant at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testrmony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. John Moore - September 1, 2011 At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect to read at the time of the trial in the action. It 1s anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this Defendant live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by the Defendant at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 2 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18070 Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by the Defendant at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented m the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. Ferri Costa - August 18, 2010 At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not abie to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect to read at the tume of the trial in the action. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this Defendant live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by the Defendant at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by the Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 3 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18070 Defendant at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. Terri Costa - September 1, 2011 At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect to read at the trme of the trial in the action. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this Defendant live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the transcript. The Piaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by the Defendant at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by the Defendant at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the 4 Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 4 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18070 position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known toe the Defendants and to the Court. Linda Getzen - February 2, 2011 At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintifis are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect to read at the time of the trial in the action. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this member of the Defendant Williams Parker live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by this member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by this member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiits may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 5of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18070 forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. Jeffrey Middlebooks - June 24, 2011 At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect to read at the time of the trial in the action. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this member of the Defendant Williams Parker live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by this member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of tnal depends in large part upon the testimony offered by this member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the 6 Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 6 of 18 Tibar v, Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18070 Defendants and to the Court. David Wallace - Jume 24, 2011 At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect to read at the time of the trial mm the action. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will call this member of the Defendant Williams Parker live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by this member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends tn large part upon the testimony offered by this member of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintifts may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions, Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 7 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18070 Radha Bachman - December 15, 2016 At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect to read at the time of the trial in the action. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will cal! this former attorney and agent of the Defendant Williams Parker live to testify at trial. Thus, the Plaintiffs may not need to read any portion of the deposition, or may need to read some or all of the transcript. The Plaintiffs cannot predict what testimony will actually be offered by this former attorney and agent of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, and later for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon the testimony offered by this former attorney and agent of the Defendant Williams Parker at the time of trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. ‘Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testmony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 8 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18670 John Frost - September 21, 2011 Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Frost at the time of his deposition and further based upon the Court’s rulings at the time of the hearings on the parties Motions for Limine the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer any testimony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike the Expert testimony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering any expert testimony at the time of the trial, Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike and/or this expert is offered at the time of trial to testify it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial. The Plaintiffs cannot predict ifthe Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial. At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary, the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plamtiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a decision. would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as a designated expert to be cailed at the time of trial, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer from this expert. Thus, there ts the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 9 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18070 for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the Detendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at the time of the trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintifis will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. John Patterson - September 22, 2011 Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Patterson offered at the time of his deposition the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer certain testimony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike certain of the Expert testimony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering certain expert testimony at the time of the trial. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike and/or this expert is offered at the time of trial to testify it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial. The Plaintiffs cannot predict if the Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify 1Q Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 10 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18076 at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial. At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary, the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a decision would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as a designated expert to be called at the time of tnal, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer from this expert. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at the time of the trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it 1s the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the 1] Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 11 of 18 Tibar vy. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18076 Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. Michael Briggs - September 23, 2011 Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Briggs offered at the time of his deposition the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer all or certain testimony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike all or certain of the Expert testrmony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering all or certain expert testimony at the time of the triai. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike and/or this expert is offered at the time of trial to testify itis impossibie for the Plaintiffs to anticipate and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial. The Plaintiffs cannot predict if the Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial. At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. T his notice does not establish that the Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary, the Plaintiffs may elect fo read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a decision would be based in iarge part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as a designated expert to be called at the time of trial, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer from this expert. 12 Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 12 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18079 Thus, there 1s the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at the time of the tnal. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented m the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. Charles Polk - September 11, 2011 Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Polk offered at the time of his deposition the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer all or certain testumony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motionto Strike all or certain of the Expert testimony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering all or certain expert testimony at the trme of the tnal. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike and/or this expert is offered at the time of trial to testify itis impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial. 13 Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 13 of 18 fibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18076 The Plaintiffs cannot predict ifthe Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial. At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary, the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at ali, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a decision would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as a designated expert to be called at the time of tnal, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer from this expert. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at the time of the trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, itis the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any 14 Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 14 of 18 fibar v. Williams, ef al Case No.: 2008 CA 18070 of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs wili consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. Stephen Oscher - September 23, 2011 Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Oscher offered at the time of his deposition the Plaintiffs do not beheve that 1t would be appropriate for this expert to offer all or certain testimony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike al] or certain of the Expert testimony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering all or certain expert testimony at the time of the trial. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike and/or this expert is offered at the time of trial to testify it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial. The Plaintiffs cannot predict if the Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial. At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary, the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the yury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a decision would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as a designated expert to be called at the time of trial, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer 15 Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 15 of 18 Tibar vy. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18076 from this expert. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs wil! utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present tine. Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at the time of the trial. There ts a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Piaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. Ralph Moon ~ September 30, 2011 Based upon the scope of the opinions offered by Mr. Moon offered at the time of his deposition the Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be appropriate for this expert to offer all or certain testimony at the time of trial. In fact, the Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion to Strike all or certain of the Expert testimony of this Expert, and to prevent this expert from offering all or certain expert testimony at the time of the trial. Until the Court rules on the anticipated Motion to Strike and/or this expert 1s offered at the time of trial to testify itis impossible for the Plaintiffs to anticipate 16 Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 16 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18670 and predict what portions, if any, of this experts deposition may need to be read at trial. The Plaintiffs cannot predict ifthe Defendants are actually going to offer this expert to testify at the time of trial and what testimony would actually be offered by this expert at the time of trial. At the present time, Plaintiffs designate the entire deposition transcript as potentially to be presented and read to the jury at the time of the trial in this matter. This notice does not establish that the Plaintiffs are vouching or adopting all of the opinions and testimony of this expert. To the contrary, the Plaintiffs may elect to read to the jury only certain portions of the deposition of this expert. Unfortunately, as a practical matter the Plaintiffs are not able to identify what portions of this deposition the Plaintiffs may elect, if at all, to read at the time of the trial in the action. Such a decision would be based in large part upon the Defendants election to continue with this expert as a designated expert to be called at the time of trial, as well as what testimony the Defendants offer from this expert. Thus, there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs will utilize certain portions of the deposition for impeachment purposes, as well as for substantive purposes. The Plaintiffs do not believe that the portions of potential impeachment are, or for that matter, can be set forth in detail at the present time. Additionally, as set forth above, whether the Plaintiffs intend to read or show any portions of this deposition as substantive evidence at the time of trial depends in large part upon whether the Defendants actually keep this expert as a designated expert and/or actually present his testimony at the time of the trial. There is a distinct possibility that the Plaintiffs may need to present as either rebuttal evidence or as substantive evidence certain of the testimony set forth in the entire transcript. 17 Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 17 of 18 Tibar v. Williams, et al Case No.: 2008 CA 18076 Thus, it is the position of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants need to identify any and objections to any of the testimony presented in the above depositions. Upon the objections being set forth, the Plaintiffs will consider the objections and let their position be made known to the Defendants and to the Court. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via facsimile and U.S. Maii to: Jessica Kirkwood Alley & Lawrence P. Ingram, Esquire, Phelps Dunbar, LLP. 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1900, Tampa, Florida 33602-5311, on this x day of September, 2011. SEIDEN, ALDER, & MATTHEWMAN, P.A. 7795 N.W. Beacon Square Bivd., Suite #201 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Teiephone: (561) 416-0170 Facsimile: Sf 561).4 6-017]cae? : Matas . peor cae By Me ne Wayne M. Alder Florida Bar No. 850616 Andrew Seiden Florida Bar No. 373672 W:\1219.601\Pleadings\Plaintiffs Deposition Designations AS 1 .wpd 18 Filed for Record 09/30/2011 03:50 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court - Sarasota County, FL - 2008 CA 018070 NC Dkt-65123192 Page 18 of 18