Free Objections - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00591-MSK-BNB

Document 169

Filed 07/19/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-CV-0591-MSK-BNB

MELANIE LAND, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS

Plaintiff Melanie Land, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files her objections to Defendant's exhibits as follows: 1. Exhibit 8 - Education transcript from Jefferson County Public Schools and

Exhibit 9 - Academic Records: Arvada West High School - Plaintiff and Defendant were unsure whether these would be duplicate records before the exhibit exchange. After reviewing the exhibit Defendant provided to Plaintiff, Plaintiff withdraws Exhibit 8. Plaintiff stipulates to admissibility of the transcripts, but objects to the admissibility of the ACT scores as irrelevant and as hearsay. In the event that these scores are determined to be relevant, they are confusing and misleading. 2. Exhibit 10 - Academic Records: Colorado State University - Plaintiff

stipulates to admissibility of the transcripts, but objects to the admissibility of the other documents as irrelevant and as hearsay. In the event that these documents are determined to be

Case 1:04-cv-00591-MSK-BNB

Document 169

Filed 07/19/2005

Page 2 of 4

relevant, they are confusing and misleading. 3. Exhibits 31-46 - Medical Records of Plaintiff - Plaintiff and Defendant had

agreed that Defendant would copy all of the medical records for the exhibit book. Plaintiff believed that Defendant would copy all medical billing records for each provider as part of the records. Defendant did not include the billing records with the medical records. Plaintiff objects to the medical billing being left out of these exhibits. Plaintiff will waive this objection if Defense Counsel agrees to specific medical billing records being submitted with her medical expense summary under Exhibit 24. 4. Exhibit 76 - Curriculum Vitae of Garth H. Allen - Mr. Allen is not testifying

in this trial, so his CV is irrelevant. 5. Exhibit 82 - Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Progressive Specialty

Insurance Company's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents - This exhibit is largely duplicative of Exhibit 83, Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant State Farm Insurance Company's First Set of Interrogatories. In addition, this exhibit is irrelevant as Progressive Insurance is no longer a defendant in this action and the prejudice to Plaintiff outweighs probative value for reasons stated in Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Evidence Regarding Settlement with Progressive Specialty Insurance. 6. Exhibit 83 - Plaintiff's Response to Defendant State Farm Insurance

Company's First Set of Interrogatories - Plaintiff objects to this exhibit to the extent that Progressive Insurance is in the caption. Plaintiff will withdraw this objection if State Farm agrees to redact Progressive Insurance from the caption and certificate of mailing, or anywhere else it may appear. 7. Exhibit 84 - Plaintiff's Response to Defendant State Farm Insurance

Case 1:04-cv-00591-MSK-BNB

Document 169

Filed 07/19/2005

Page 3 of 4

Company's First Set of Request for the Production of Documents - Plaintiff objects to this exhibit to the extent that Progressive Insurance is in the caption. Plaintiff will withdraw this objection is State Farm agrees to redact Progressive Insurance from the caption and certificate of mailing or anywhere else it appears. 8. Exhibit 85 - Affidavit of Jacob Swift - Plaintiff objects to this exhibit because it

is hearsay and Mr. Swift cannot testify by way of affidavit without the opportunity for cross examination. Furthermore, Plaintiff objects to this exhibit because Progressive Insurance is referenced in the caption. 9. Exhibit 86 - Affidavit of Raul Calahorra - Plaintiff objects to this exhibit

because it is hearsay and Mr. Calahorra cannot testify by way of affidavit without the opportunity for cross examination. Furthermore, Plaintiff objects to this exhibit because Progressive Insurance is referenced in the caption. 10. Exhibit 87 - Affidavit of David Estrada - Plaintiff objects to this exhibit

because it is hearsay and Mr. Estrada cannot testify by way of affidavit without the opportunity for cross examination. Furthermore, Plaintiff objects to this exhibit because Progressive Insurance is referenced in the caption. 11. Exhibit 88 - Photographs taken of Melanie Land at Wedding of Eric Land -

Plaintiff objects to this exhibit as these photos are irrelevant. In the event that they are relevant, they are misleading, confusing, and unfairly prejudicial. 11. Exhibit 89 - Essay, "People and Experiences that have Influenced Me,"

(Melanie Land) - Plaintiff objects to this exhibit because it hearsay. 12. Exhibit 90 - Plaintiff's Employment Records from Austin Lending - Plaintiff

objects to this exhibit as hearsay and irrelevant to the issues in this case.

Case 1:04-cv-00591-MSK-BNB

Document 169

Filed 07/19/2005

Page 4 of 4

13.

Plaintiff does not object to the admissibility of any other exhibit. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Melissa J. Winthers Melissa J. Winthers 1600 Broadway, Suite 2600 Denver, Colorado 80202-4926 Telephone: (303) 861-1000 Facsimile: (303) 894-0857 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 19, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was e-filed and served to the following parties: Counsel for Defendant State Farm Insurance: David Canter, Esq. Jonathan A. Cross, Esq. Cross & Liechty, P.C. 400 South Colorado Blvd, Ste 900 Denver, CO 80246 303-333-4122 Fax 303-388-1749

/s/ Robin Fagler