Free Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

ll?
Case 1 :04—cv—00582-Gl\/IS Document 67-4 Filed 08/ 1 5/200% Page 1 of 3
TAB 3 C
PLAINTIFF’S FACT WITNESSES
1. Elaine G. Agee (will call)
2. Thomas J. Fitzpatrick (will call) A
3. Lazarus Krikorian (will call)
4. Richard C. Oshlo (will call)
5. Gerry A. Gagaliardi (will call)
6. Dean Vomero (will call) j
7. Francis X. Devine (will call) C
8. Michael L. Newsom (will call)
9. Stuart A. Gollin (will call)
10. Neil Gilmour (may call) 0
11. Michael D. Keller (may call) .
12. Major Horton (may call)
13. Dell’s fact witnesses (may call)
14. Dell’s expert witnesses (may call)
15. Hewlett-Packard Company’s fact witnesses (may call) it
16. Hewlett-Packard Company’s expert witnesses (may call)
11<>o<>6.01600/21412i><><>v4 p

Case 1:04—cv—00582-Gl\/IS Document 67-4 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: )
) Chapter l 1
INACOM CORP., Q Q., ) I
) Case No. 00-2426 (PJW)
Debtors. )

) .
INACOM CORP., on behalf of affiliated )
Debtors, ) Civil Action no. 04-582-GMS
) Adv. No. 02-3499
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION, et al, )
1
Defendants. )
)
DELL, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO ,
PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS DESIGNATIONS
Dell, Inc. (f/k/a Dell Computer Corporation) ("De1l") files this its objections to P1aintiff”s
Witness Designations. In support hereof, Dell shows the Court as follows:
1. Dell objects to any testimony by Neil Gilmour because Inacom failed to disclose
the witness in its responses to De11’s Initial Disclosures, Defendant’s First Set of
Interrogatories—Interrogatory No. 2, or otherwise in discovery. Consequently, Mr. Gilmour
should not be permitted to offer testimony at the trial of this matter. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c).
2. Dell objects to any expert testimony by Stuart A. Gollin because; (1) he is not
qualified to testify on the subjects on which he has been designated; (2) his testimony is not
reliable; and (3) his testimony is not relevant to the issues presented in the case. See FED. R.
EVID. 702; see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, [nc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kuhmo
Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999); Redman v. John D. Brush & Co., 111 F.3d
006005.00 1 s0; 176003.01

Case 1:O4—cv—OO582-Gl\/IS Document 67-4 Filed 08/15/2003 Page 3 of 3
1 174, 1 179 (4th Cir. 1997). Consequently, Mr. Gollin should not be permitted; to offer any expert
testimony at the trial of this matter. Dell has also tiled a joint Defendant’s Motion to liixclude the
Expert Testimony and Report of Stuart A. Gollin, setting forth the above objections in more
detail.
3. Dell objects to any expert testimony by Dean Vomero because: (1) he is not
qualified to testify on the subjects on which he has been designated; (2) his testimony is not
reliable; and (3) his testimony is not relevant to the issues presented in thecase. See FED. R.
EVID. 702; see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kuhmo
Tire C0. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999); Redman v. John D. Brush & Co., 111 F.3d
1174, 1179 (4th Cir. 1997). Consequently, Mr. Vomero should not be permitted to offer any
expert testimony at the trial of this matter. Dell has also tiled a joint Defendant’s Motion to
Exclude the Expert Testimony and Report of Dean Vomero, setting forth the above objections in
more detail.
006005.00 129. 176003.01

Case 1:04-cv-00582-GMS

Document 67-4

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00582-GMS

Document 67-4

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00582-GMS

Document 67-4

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 3 of 3