Free Objections - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 39

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-CV-1135-REB-PAC ADRIAN OSORNIO, BETSY MARTINEZ, JESSICA WILLIAMS, ISTQUIA REYNA, MIGUEL FONTANET, and MAYRA CARMONA, v. Plaintiffs,

T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT T-MOBILE USA, INC. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' TRIAL EXHIBITS ______________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to Section 7.b. of the Final Pretrial Order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and the May 26, 2005 Pre-Trial Conference instructions of U.S. Magistrate Judge Coan, Defendant TMobile USA, Inc. ("Defendant") objects to the Exhibits identified by Plaintiffs in their June 13, 2005, designation of Exhibits as follows: I. Objections Because of Duplication.

Several of Plaintiffs' listed Exhibits are duplicates of others. Defendant will stipulate to the better quality copy of Plaintiffs' duplicate Exhibits, as noted below. Defendant objects to the poorer quality copy of Plaintiffs' duplicate Exhibits, as noted below, and on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit to Which Defendant Objects Plaintiffs' Exhibit 48 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 49 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 50 Exhibit to Which Defendant Will Stipulate Plaintiffs' Exhibit 186 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 187 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 188

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 39

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 2 of 7

Plaintiffs' Exhibit 51 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 55 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 56 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 152 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 154 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 155 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 156 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 158 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 181

Plaintiffs' Exhibit 189 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 183 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 182 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 20 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 22 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 23 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 24 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 52

II. 1.

Objections to Plaintiffs' Non-duplicate Exhibits. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 41 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. See also Denny v. Hutchinson Sales Corp., 649 F.2d 816, 821-22 (10th Cir. 1981) (10th Cir. upholding district court's exclusion of CCRC report on hearsay and relevance grounds finding that evidentiary rulings lie within trial court's discretion); Babich v. Unisys Corp., Civ. A. No. 92-1473-MLB, 1994 WL 167984, at *2 (10th Cir. 1994) (upholding district court's exclusion of EEOC findings on relevance grounds stating that whether to admit or exclude administrative agency data is within the sound discretion of trial court). 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 90 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. See also Denny v. Hutchinson Sales Corp., 649 F.2d 816, 821-22 (10th Cir. 1981) (10th Cir. upholding district court's exclusion of CCRC report on hearsay and relevance grounds finding that evidentiary rulings lie within trial court's discretion); Babich v. Unisys Corp., Civ. A. No. 92-1473-MLB, 1994 WL 167984, at *2 (10th Cir. 1994) (upholding -2-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 39

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 3 of 7

district court's exclusion of EEOC findings on relevance grounds stating that whether to admit or exclude administrative agency data is within the sound discretion of trial court). 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 130 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802, 901 and 1002. 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 131 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802, 901 and 1002. 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 132 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. See also Denny v. Hutchinson Sales Corp., 649 F.2d 816, 821-22 (10th Cir. 1981) (10th Cir. upholding district court's exclusion of CCRC report on hearsay and relevance grounds finding that evidentiary rulings lie within trial court's discretion); Babich v. Unisys Corp., Civ. A. No. 92-1473-MLB, 1994 WL 167984, at *2 (10th Cir. 1994) (upholding district court's exclusion of EEOC findings on relevance grounds stating that whether to admit or exclude administrative agency data is within the sound discretion of trial court). 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 160 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. 7. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 161 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. See also Denny v. Hutchinson Sales Corp., 649 F.2d 816, 821-22 (10th Cir. 1981) (10th Cir. upholding district court's exclusion of CCRC report on hearsay and relevance grounds finding that evidentiary rulings lie within trial court's discretion); Babich v. Unisys Corp., Civ. A. No. 92-1473-MLB, 1994 WL 167984, at *2 (10th Cir. 1994) (upholding district court's exclusion of EEOC findings on relevance grounds stating that whether to admit or exclude administrative agency data is within the sound discretion of trial court).

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 39

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 4 of 7

8.

Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 162 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802, 901 and 1002. 9. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 193 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. See also Denny v. Hutchinson Sales Corp., 649 F.2d 816, 821-22 (10th Cir. 1981) (10th Cir. upholding district court's exclusion of CCRC report on hearsay and relevance grounds finding that evidentiary rulings lie within trial court's discretion); Babich v. Unisys Corp., Civ. A. No. 92-1473-MLB, 1994 WL 167984, at *2 (10th Cir. 1994) (upholding district court's exclusion of EEOC findings on relevance grounds stating that whether to admit or exclude administrative agency data is within the sound discretion of trial court). 10. 402 and 403. 11. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 205 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401, Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 202 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. 12. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 206 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. 13. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 207 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. 14. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 208 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802, 901 and 1002. 15. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 209 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802, 901 and 1002. 16. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 212 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802, 901 and 1002. -4-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 39

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 5 of 7

17.

Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 214 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802 and 901. Because Plaintiffs have not provided a copy of Exhibit 214 nor explained from where Exhibit 214 originates, Defendant reserves the right to supplement this objection. 18. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 217 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801 and 802. 19. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 220 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801, 802, 901 and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-108 (2004). 20. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 221 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801 and 802. 21. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 222 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801 and 802. 22. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 223 on the grounds of Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402, 403, 801 and 802. 23. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 224 on the grounds of F.R.E. 401, 402,

403, 801, 802 and 901. Because Plaintiffs have not provided a copy of Exhibit 224 nor explained from where Exhibit 224 originates, Defendant reserves the right to supplement this objection. 24. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 225 on the grounds of F.R.E. 401, 402,

403, 801, 802, 901 and 1002. 25. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 226 on the grounds of F.R.E. 401, 402,

403, 801, 802, 901 and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-108. See also Starrett v. Wadley, 876 F. 2d 808,

-5-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 39

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 6 of 7

823 (10th Cir. 1989) (upholding district court's exclusion of plaintiff's unemployment compensation application on relevance grounds). 26. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 227 on the grounds of F.R.E. 401, 402,

403, 801, 802 and 901. Because Plaintiffs have not provided a copy of Exhibit 227 nor explained from where Exhibit 227 originates, Defendant reserves the right to supplement this objection. 27. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 228 on the grounds of F.R.E. 401, 402,

403, 801, 802 and 901. 28. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 229 on the grounds of F.R.E. 401, 402,

403, 801, 802 and 901. 29. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 230 on the grounds of F.R.E. 401, 402,

403, 801, 802 and 901. s/ Elizabeth J. McNamee David R. Hammond Elizabeth J. McNamee DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP 1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-9400 FAX: (303) 893-1379 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT T-MOBILE USA, INC.

-6-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 39

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 20, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANT T-MOBILE USA, INC. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' TRIAL EXHIBITS with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: [email protected] [email protected] s/ Elizabeth J. McNamee Attorney for Defendant DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP 1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-9400 FAX: (303) 893-1379 E-mail: [email protected]