Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GQ Sand, LLC v. Conley Bulk Services, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

June 24, 2016

GQ SAND, LLC, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
CONLEY BULK SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff and Crossclaim Defendant, RANGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, and Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, and NEJGID, LLC, Defendant and Counterclaim/Crossclaim Plaintiff. GQ Sand Designation Defendants' Objections Defendants' Counterdesignation GQ Sand's Response/Objections Ruling GQ Sand Designation Defendants' Objections Defendants' Counterdesignation GQ Sand's Response/Objections Ruling GQ Sand Designation Defendants' Objections Defendants' Counterdesignation GQ Sand's Objections Ruling Conley Bulk Services, LLC’s Designations GQ Sand, LLC’s Objections Conley Bulk Services LLC’s Counter-Designations GQ Sand, LLC’s Objections Ruling

          ORDER

          WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge.

         Having reviewed the parties’ deposition designations, objections and counter-designations and objections to counter-designations, the court issues the following rulings as to the parties’ objections to witnesses Scott Hohensee and Robert Schenken and defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s designations of witness Carl Hudspeth.[1] The approved designations may be presented to the jury unless the witness is available to testify in person. The party proposing the testimony shall remove all objections and any other asides or discussions between counsel and/or with the court reporter, even where not noted by the court in its rulings.

         I. Plaintiff’s Designations

         A. Scott Hohensee

GQ Sand Designation
Defendants' Objections
Defendants' Counterdesignation
GQ Sand's Response/Objections
Ruling

19:15-21:1

Calls for speculation

21:2-13

Question was looking for an estimate not exact number; no objection to addition of counterdesignation if original designation allowed

Overruled.

25:5 -26:6

Calls for speculation

Actually document references phone call asked about; refreshed recollection

Sustained as to 25:5-19; otherwise overruled.

48:3-49:7

Calls for speculation

He is identifying crush values from sand tests with documents in front of him - no speculation

Overruled.

49:15-18, 22-25

Calls for speculation

No speculation - if had additional product

Sustained.

         B. Robert Schenken

GQ Sand Designation
Defendants' Objections
Defendants' Counterdesignation
GQ Sand's Response/Objections
Ruling

65:10-13

65:14-66:11

Relevance, doesn't remember if specific order and normal course of business is irrelevant

Overruled.

         C. Carl Hudspeth

GQ Sand Designation
Defendants' Objections
Defendants' Counterdesignation
GQ Sand's Objections
Ruling

64:8-65:9

81:12-15; 81:22-25; 82:1-9

Objection as to Court's ruling on Prior/Other Acts

Sustained.

121:20-23

89:10-11; 90:6-16; 91:15-21

Objection as to Court's ruling on Prior/Other Acts

Sustained.

124:3-125:7

116:18-117:6

Objection as to Court's ruling on Prior/Other Acts

Sustained.

135:4-7, 12-25

136:25-137:10

Hearsay

Counter-designation withdrawn.

167:1-9

167:19-168:2; 173:5-15

Objection as to Court's ruling on Prior/Other Acts

Sustained.

180:14-181:4

180:2-13

Relevance 401, does not matter what he doesn't know

Counter-designation withdrawn.

         II. Defendants’ Designations

         A. Robert Schenken

Conley Bulk Services, LLC’s Designations
GQ Sand, LLC’s Objections
Conley Bulk Services LLC’s Counter-Designations
GQ Sand, LLC’s Objections
Ruling

7:16-8:1

Relevance

This is the witness’ name.

Overruled.

8:13-9:18

Relevance of 8:13-19

This is relevant, because it provides background on the witness.

Overruled.

19:21-20:1

Relevance of work history

Mr. Schenken’s work history provides context for the jury, which is relevant.

Overruled.

21:22-22:1

Completeness

22:2-6

No objection.

Sustained; add 22:2-6.

61:23-62-2

Completeness

Add, 60:14-18, 61:9-20

No objection.

Sustained; add 60:14-18, 61:9-20.

64:17-67:18

Foundation; 64:24-66:4 doesn’t recall if GQ Sand ordered specific crush value, sales order “probably” would state out of the norm

This is not an issue of foundation. The jury can infer from Mr. Schenken’s testimony his credibility.

Withdrawn.

83:2-84:2

Completeness

Add 84:3-13

No objection.

Sustained; add 84:3-13.

89:1-90:2

Relevance; duplicative 89:21- 90:2, see designation 32:12-33:7 and objection above

This testimony is directing the witness to a certain topic.

Sustained as to 89:1-3, 89:21-90:2; otherwise overruled.

92:19-93:13

93:8-13 is Hearsay “ownership said”

Mr. Schenken was testifying on behalf of WWS; this is not hearsay.

Overruled.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.