Dries v. Sprinklr Inc

1 HONORABLE MICHELLE L. PETERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JOSEPH DRIES, ) Case No. C20-47-MLP 8 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ON NOTICE OF DEPOSITION ) DESIGNATIONS RE: RUELLO 10 v. ) ) SPRINKLR, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) 12 Defendant. ) ) 14 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 32, Plaintiff Joseph Dries and Defendant Sprinklr, Inc. submitted the following deposition designations, objections, and counter designations.

16 Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: 17 Defendant’s Plaintiff’s Objection(s) to Witness Objection(s) Counter Designation Counter-Designation 18 Designation Ruello, Simone 5:16-19 6:1-3 Ruello, Simone 7:4-13 7:14-20 Ruello, Simone 9:19-24 8:15-9:4 Ruello, Simone 10:6-11:7 9:25-10:5 Ruello, Simone 11:11-17 11:8-10 Ruello, Simone 11:22-12:23 12:24-13:1 Ruello, Simone 13:2-8 14:20-22 Ruello, Simone 18:18-19:13 Ruello, Simone 20:5-22 Vague, lack of foundation (FRE ORDER ON NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS RE: RUELLO - 1 1 Defendant’s Plaintiff’s Objection(s) to Witness Objection(s) Counter 2 Designation Designation Counter-Designation 3 602) OVERRULED Ruello, Simone 21:15-22 5 Relevance, character evidence 6 (FRE 401-404), Ruello, Simone 24:23-25:15 Court’s in limine ruling re “investigation” OVERRULED 9 Relevance, character evidence Ruello, Simone 25:21-26:5 (FRE 401-404) 26:6-27:6 11 OVERRULED Relevance, character evidence Ruello, Simone 27:13-30:18 (FRE 401-404) 30:20-25 OVERRULED Ruello, Simone 31:16-34:1 31:7-15 15 34:2-17 (Redact 16 “Regardless of whether it Hearsay (FRE 801- Ruello, Simone 34:18-35:14 resulted in a 803) formal OVERRULED investigation or 19 not” from 34:9- 10) 20 35:15-36:7, Ruello, Simone 36:13-18 36:19-25 Ruello, Simone 37:16-25 38:1-4 Ruello, Simone 39:12-21 38:10-39:8 23 Relevance, character evidence 40:1-22; 41: 2- Ruello, Simone 42:21-43:4 (FRE 401-404) 42:20 OVERRULED ORDER ON NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS RE: RUELLO - 2 1 Defendant’s Plaintiff’s Objection(s) to Witness Objection(s) Counter 2 Designation Designation Counter-Designation 3 Relevance, 44:20-45:14 Ruello, Simone 43:24-44:17 c (Fh Rar Ea c 4te 0r 1 e -4v 0id 4e ) nce ( hR are ad sa sc int g“ ”o r f rom OVERRULED 45:2) 48:2-3 - Relevance, Ruello, Simone 46:10-48:14 not a question 48:15-25 SUSTAINED Ruello, Simone 49:1-24 Lack of foundation 53:4-14; 55:14- Ruello, Simone 50:19-23 (FRE 602) 56:7; 59:24- OVERRULED 60:15 10 61:21-62:2; Ruello, Simone 67:17-68:12 63:15-19 70:7-9 and 70:13-15 12 – Relevance, not a Ruello, Simone 69:23-70:25 64:10-25 question 13 SUSTAINED Ruello, Simone 71:1-11 71:12-15 Ruello, Simone 71:16-72:6 72:7-14 Lack of foundation Ruello, Simone 75:7-76:6 (FRE 602) 73:2-5 SUSTAINED Relevance, lack of 18 foundation (FRE Ruello, Simone 77:1-11 401-403, 602) 74:21-75:5 19 SUSTAINED Ruello, Simone 77:12-79:16 79:6-14, 17 – Relevance, not a Ruello, Simone 79:17-81:5 question SUSTAINED 23 Lack of foundation, assumes facts not in Ruello, Simone 80:2-82:12 evidence (FRE 602) as to 80:6-17 SUSTAINED ORDER ON NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS RE: RUELLO - 3 1 Defendant’s Plaintiff’s Objection(s) to Witness Objection(s) Counter 2 Designation Designation Counter-Designation 3 81:3-5 – Move to strike as non- 4 responsive OVERRULED 82:23-25 – assumes facts OVERRULED 7 83:22—84:4 Lack of foundation, calls 8 for speculation Ruello, Simone 82:17-84:23 (FRE 602) OVERRULED 10 84:6-9 - form, calls for speculation, 11 relevance OVERRULED 13 85:18-19 Lack of foundation (FRE 86:7-8, 86:11- Ruello, Simone 85:10-86:4 602) 18, 86:20-21 15 OVERRULED Ruello, Simone 88:3-6 88:21-25 Lack of Ruello, Simone 88:13-90:10 foundation (FRE 602) 18 OVERRULED 19 Relevance, lack of foundation (FRE 90:11-16; Ruello, Simone 90:17-91:16 401-403, 602) 91:20-92:6 SUSTAINED Hambleton Bros.

22 Lumber Co. v. 28:12-16 Balkin Enterprises, Ruello, Simone (errata)1 Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2005) 24 (upholding order Defendant’s designation of this testimony is contingent on the Court’s overruling Defendant’s objections to any testimony from Ruello’s deposition about the destruction of handwritten notes. If the Court sustains Defendant’s objections, Defendant will withdraw any designation of Ruello’s testimony regarding her handwritten notes.

ORDER ON NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS RE: RUELLO - 4 1 Defendant’s Plaintiff’s Objection(s) to Witness Objection(s) Counter 2 Designation Designation Counter-Designation 3 striking deposition corrections and a 4 declaration as a sanction when a 5 party had violated Rule 30(e)).

SUSTAINED Hambleton Bros.

8 Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, 9 Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2005) 10 (upholding order Ruello, Simone 29:4-8 (errata)2 striking deposition corrections and a 12 declaration as a sanction when a 13 party had violated Rule 30(e)).

SUSTAINED 15 Hambleton Bros.

Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2005) 18 (upholding order 29:17-19 Ruello, Simone (errata)3 s ct or ri rk ei cn tg io d ne sp ao ns dit i ao n declaration as a sanction when a 21 party had violated Rule 30(e)).

22 SUSTAINED 23 Hambleton Bros.

Ruello, Simone 30:17 (errata)4 Lumber Co. v. 24 Balkin Enterprises, Id. Id. Id. ORDER ON NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS RE: RUELLO - 5 1 Defendant’s Plaintiff’s Objection(s) to Witness Objection(s) Counter 2 Designation Designation Counter-Designation 3 Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2005) 4 (upholding order striking deposition 5 corrections and a declaration as a sanction when a 7 party had violated Rule 30(e)).

8 SUSTAINED 9 Hambleton Bros.

Lumber Co. v. 10 Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2005) 12 (upholding order Ruello, Simone 43:4 (errata)5 striking deposition 13 corrections and a declaration as a 14 sanction when a party had violated Rule 30(e)).

16 SUSTAINED Vol 1. 2:1— Dries, Joseph 304:25 18 Vol. 2. 2:1— Dries, Joseph 60:25.

Dated this 18th day of March, 2021.

22 A MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge Id. ORDER ON NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS RE: RUELLO - 6