Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

APPENDIX B

G.

DEPOSITIONS TO BE OFFERED

The parties shall list the depositions that may be used at trial. The portions to be read or submitted at trial shall be identified by page and line number. Additionally, the party offering the deposition shall provide the Court with a copy of the offered deposition testimony. The offering party shall highlight, in color, the portions of the deposition to be offered. If multiple parties are offering the same deposition, only one copy of such deposition shall be provided. Such copy shall contain each party's highlighting (each party should use a different color) Each party hereby acknowledges by signing this joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order that any deposition not listed as provided herein will not be allowed, absent good cause.
PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF PAIGE MATTICE

DESIGNATION Pg 1, ln 1 - P. 2, ln 4
Pg 4, lns 1-20 Pg 8, lns 13-16 Pg 9, lns 18-19 Pg 12, lns 4-9 Pg 11, lns 9-10 Pg 14, lns 9-13 and 17-25 Pg 15, lns 1-4 and 22-25 Pg 16, lns 1-9 and 12-25 Pg 17, lns 1-25 Pg 18, lns 1-2 and 11-25 Pg 19, ln 1 ­ Pg 21, ln 25 Pg 22, lns 1-2 and 6-25 Pg 23, ln 1 ­ Pg 26, ln 3 Pg 28, lns 5-17

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

1 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 1 of 38

DESIGNATION
Pg 29, lns 5-25 Pg 30, ln 1 ­ Pg 31, ln 25 Pg 32, lns 1-10 and 25 Pg 33, ln 1 ­ Pg 34, ln 25 Pg 35, lns 1-13 and 19-25 Pg 36, lns 1-4 and 11-22 Pg 40, lns 1-10, 13-20, and 24-25 Pg 41, ln 1 ­ Pg 45, ln 23 Pg 46, lns 10-12 and 22-25 Pg 47, ln 1 ­ Pg 49, ln 25 Pg 50, lns 1-3 and 8-25 Pg 51, ln 1 ­ Pg 53, ln 16 Pg 54, ln 2 ­ Pg 56, ln 25 Pg 57, lns 1-10 and 13-25 Pg 58, lns 1-23 Pg 59, lns 4-25 Pg 60, lns 1-16 Pg 61, lns 21-24 Pg 62, lns 12-25 Pg 63, lns 1-16 Pg 64, ln 7 ­ Pg 69, ln 20 Pg 70, lns 4-24 Pg 71, ln 16 ­ Pg 74, ln 25 Pg 71, ln 16 ­ Pg 74, ln 25 Pg 75, lns 1-13 and 21-25 Pg 76, lns 1-16 Pg 78, ln 5 ­ Pg 80, ln 21

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

2 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 2 of 38

DESIGNATION
Pg 82, lns 6-25 Pg 83, ln 1 and 10-25 Pg 84, ln 1 - Pg 88, ln 25 Pg 89, lns 1-10 and 18-25 Pg 90, ln 1 ­ Pg 91, ln 5 Pg 93, lns 9-16 and 24-25 Pg 94, lns 1-16 Pg 95, lns 10-15 and 21-25 Pg 96, lns 1-3, 6-8, and 14-25 Pg 97, lns 1-6 and 20-25 Pg 98, lns 1-11 and 16-25 Pg 99, lns 1-4 and 9-25 Pg 100, lns 1-23 Pg 101, lns 11-25 Pg 102, ln 1 ­ Pg 103, ln 8 Pg 104, ln 25 ­ Pg 106, ln 9 Pg 108, ln 23 ­ Pg 109, ln 13 Pg 110, lns 4-17 Pg 111, lns 10-25 Pg 112, lns 3-22 Pg 113, lns 4-15 and 20-25 Pg 114, lns 1-3, 7-11, and 22-25 Pg 115, lns 1-13 Pg 116, ln 1 ­ 25 Pg 117, lns 1-8 and 16-25 Pg 118, lns 1-12 and 24-25 Pg 119, ln 1 ­ Pg 120, ln 25

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

3 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 3 of 38

DESIGNATION
Pg 121, lns 6-24 Pg 122, lns 5-11 Pg 123, lns 9-20 and 25 Pg 124, ln 1 ­ Pg 126 ln 25 Pg 127, lns 1-2 and 23-25 Pg 128, ln 1 ­ Pg 129, ln 25 Pg 130, lns 1-4 and 8-25 Pg 131, lns 1-5, 8, and 17-25 Pg 132, ln 1 ­ Pg 133, ln 25 Pg 134, lns 1-2 and 11

OBJECTION

Pg 135, ln 17 ­ Pg 136, ln 18
Pg 137, lns 1-25 Pg 138, lns 4-25 Pg 139, lns 1-6, 10, and 12-25 Pg 140, lns 1-15 Pg 141, lns 22-25 Pg 142, ln 11 ­ Pg 144, ln 25 Pg 145, lns 1-10 and 19-23 Pg 146, ln 1 ­ Pg 147, ln 25 Pg 148, lns 1-14 and 19-25 Pg 149, ln 1 ­ Pg 150, ln 25 Pg 151, lns 1-4, 12-15, and 22-25 Pg 152, ln 1 ­ Pg 155, ln9 Pg 156, lns 7-14 Pg 157, ln 12 ­ Pg 158, ln 25 Pg 159, lns 1-18 and 22 Pg 160, ln 1 ­ Pg 161, ln 19

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

4 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 4 of 38

DESIGNATION
Pg 162, ln 3 ­ Pg 164, ln 25 Pg 165, lns 1-14 and 22-25 Pg 166, lns 1-4 and 7-25 Pg 167, ln 1 ­ Pg 171, ln 25 Pg 172, lns 1-4 and 7-25 Pg 173, lns 1-25 Pg 174, lns 1-7 and 16-25 Pg 175, lns 1-16 Pg 179, lns 20-21 Pg 180, ln 22 ­ Pg 181, ln 25 Pg 182, lns 1-7 and 13-25 Pg 183, lns 1-25 Pg 184, lns 1-9 and 13-25 Pg 185, ln 1 ­ Pg 187, ln 4 Pg 188, ln 2 ­ Pg 189, ln 25 Pg 190, lns 1-9 and 12-16

OBJECTION

PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF KELLY MATTICE DESIGNATION OBJECTION

Pg 1, ln 1 ­ Pg 2, ln 9 Pg 3, lns 1-16 Pg 4, ln 1 ­ Pg 5, ln 3 Pg 6, ln 21 ­ Pg 9, ln 11 Pg 10, ln 21 ­ Pg 11, ln 25 Pg 12, ln 3 ­ Pg 15, ln 25 Pg 16, ln 4 ­ Pg 17, ln 25

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

5 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 5 of 38

DESIGNATION

OBJECTION

Pg 18, lns 1-2, 6-7, 9-11, and 13-25 Pg 19, lns 1-25 Pg 20, lns 1-8, 12-13, and 18-25 Pg 21, lns 1-25 Pg 22, lns 5-11 and 13-25 Pg 23, lns 1-2 and 12-25 Pg 24, lns 1-17 and 20-25 Pg 25; lns 1-22 Pg 26, lns 3-21 Pg 27, ln 4 ­ Pg 28, ln 1 Pg 29, lns 5-6 and 8-25 Pg 30, lns 1 ­ Pg 33, ln 25 Pg 34, lns 1-12, 16, and 18-25 Pg 35, ln 1 ­ Pg 36, ln 25 Pg 37, lns 1-8, 10, and 12-25 Pg 38, ln 1, 7-13, and 22-24 Pg 39, lns 2-17 and 22-25 Pg 40, lns 1-5 and 18-25 Pg 41, ln 1 ­ Pg 44, ln 19 Pg 45, lns 11-13 and 17-25 Pg 46, lns 1-25 Pg 47, lns 1-7 and 17-25 Pg 48, lns 1-25 Pg 49, lns 1-17 and 20-22 Pg 50, ln 2, 4-10, 14-18, 21, 23, and 25 Pg 51, lns 1-25 Pg 52, lns 1-17 and 20-24

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

6 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 6 of 38

DESIGNATION

OBJECTION

Pg 53, lns 2-5 and 15-25 Pg 54, lns 1-11, 13, and 15-25 Pg 55, ln 1 ­ Pg 56, ln 25 Pg 58, lns 2-4 and 23-25 Pg 59, lns 2-16 and 21-23 Pg 62, ln 25 ­ Pg 65, ln 22 Pg 66, lns 19-25 Pg 67, ln 1 ­ Pg 68, ln 25 Pg 71, ln 12 ­ Pg 74, ln 12 Pg 78, lns 5-25 Pg 81, ln 7 ­ Pg 82, ln 17 Pg 86, ln 15 ­ Pg 89, ln 25 Pg 92, ln 15 ­ Pg 94, ln 16 Pg 98, lns 7-20 PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF KEVIN MACGREGOR DESIGNATION Pg 1, ln 1 ­ Pg. 2, ln 25 Pg 4, lns 4-25 Pg 5, lns 1-10 and 14-16 Pg 6, lns 1-25 Pg 7, lns 1-4, 6-14, and 17-19 Pg 8, lns 6-24 Pg 9, lns 1-15 and 18-25 Pg 11, lns 1 ­ Pg 12, lns 10, 18, and 21-25 Pg 13, lns 1-12 and 14-25 OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

7 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 7 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 14, lns 1-18 and 23-25 Pg 15, lns 5-21 Pg 17, lns 1-15 and 22-25 Pg 18, lns 1-13 and 16-25 Pg 19, lns 19-25 Pg 20, lns 1-19 and 22-25 Pg 21, lns 1-7 and 14-25 Pg 22, lns 9-25 Pg 23, lns 1-19 Pg 24, lns 23-25 Pg 25, lns 1-18 Pg 26, ln 25 Pg 27, lns 1-3 and 15-25 Pg 28, lns 1-25 Pg 30, lns 2-22 Pg 31, lns 1-20 Pg 32, lns 15-25 Pg 33, lns 1-15 and 19-25 Pg 34, ln 1, 5-16, and 21-25 Pg 35, lns 1-20 and 22-25 Pg 36, lns 1-7 and 18-25 Pg 37, lns 1-4, 8-16, and 23-25 Pg 38, lns 1-2, 6-9, and 13-21 Pg 39, lns 5-25 Pg 40, 1-3

OBJECTION

PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

8 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 8 of 38

FROM DEPOSITION OF CHERYL MACGREGOR DESIGNATION Pg 1, ln 1 ­ Pg 2, ln 25 Pg 4, lns 1-7 and 13-21 Pg 7, lns 8-17 Pg 9, ln 9 ­ Pg 10, ln 25 Pg 11, lns 4-25 Pg 12, lns 1-11 and 25 Pg 13, ln 1 ­ Pg 18, ln 25 Pg 19, lns 1-15 and 20-25 Pg 20, lns 1-7 and 12-25 Pg 21, lns 1-20 Pg 22, ln 5 ­ Pg 23, ln 14 Pg 24, ln 2 ­ Pg 27, ln 25 Pg 28, lns 1-12 and 15-25 Pg 29, lns 1-9 and 13-25 Pg 30, ln 3 ­ Pg 32, ln 25 Pg 33, lns 1-19 and 23-25 Pg 34, lns 5-25 Pg 35, lns 1-3 and 23-25 Pg 36, lns 6-11 and 21-25 Pg 37, lns 1-18 and 22-25 Pg 38, lns 1-20 Pg 39, lns 5-15 and 21-25 Pg 40, lns 1-25 Pg 41, lns 1-11 and 15-25 Pg 42, ln 1 ­ Pg 44, ln 25 Pg 45, lns 1-2, 4-5, and 8-24 OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

9 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 9 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 46, ln 10 ­ Pg 51, ln 25 Pg 52, ln 4 ­ Pge 53, ln 23 Pg 54, lns 7-20 Pg 55, lns 3-6 and 8-25 Pg 56, lns 2-25 Pg 57, ln 1 ­ Pg 58, ln 25 Pg 59, lns 1-3 and 21-25 Pg 60, lns 1-12 Pg 61, lns 1-25 Pg 62, lns 2-15 and 25 Pg 63, ln 1 ­ Pg 64, ln 18 Pg 65, lns 16-25 Pg 66, ln 1 and 14-25 Pg 67, ln 1 ­ Pg 68, ln 25 Pg 69, lns 1-18 and 22-25 Pg 70, ln 1 ­ Pg 71, ln 11 Pg 72, ln 1 ­ Pg 75, ln 10 Pg 76, lns 15-19 Pg 79, lns 5-25 Pg 80, lns 1-4 and 9-25 Pg 81, lns 1-24 Pg 82, lns 5-25 Pg 83, lns 1-6 and 10-16 Pg 84, lns 4-10 and 16-25 Pg 85, lns 1-2 and 22-25 Pg 86, lns 1-20 Pg 87, ln 5 ­ Pg 89, ln 25

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

10 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 10 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 90, ln 4 ­ Pg 92, ln 25 Pg 93, lns 1-13 and 18-25 Pg 94, ln 1-25 Pg 95, lns 1-18 and 23-24 Pg 96, lns 16-25 Pg 97, lns 1-13 and 17-23 Pg 98, ln 1 ­ Pg 99, ln 25 Pg 100, lns 1-6 and 15-25 Pg 101, ln 1 ­ Pg 102, ln 19 Pg 103, lns 4-10 and 12 Pg 105, lns 1-4 and 11-25 Pg 106, ln 9 ­ Pg 108, ln 23 Pg 109, lns 4-11 Pg 110, lns 5-25 Pg 111, lns 1-10 and 15-25 Pg 112, lns 1-24 Pg 113, ln 1 ­ Pge 119, ln 23 Pg 120, lns 2-25 Pg 121, lns 1-6 and 10-18 Pg 122, lns 7-10 and 12-17 Pg 123, lns 1-10 and 16-25 Pg 124, lns 1-8 and 24-25 Pg 125, ln 1 ­ Pg 126, ln 3 Pg 128, lns 13-25 Pg 129, lns 1-2 and 7-25 Pg 130, lns 1-3 and 9-25 Pg 131, lns 1-15 and 25

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

11 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 11 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 132, lns 1-18 and 20-25 Pg 133, lns 1-23 Pg 134, ln 6 ­ Pg 136, ln 3

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

12 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 12 of 38

PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF SUZANNE BETTS DESIGNATION Pg 6, lns 16-17 Pg 14, lns 10-25 Pg 15, lns 1-25 Pg 16, lns 1-25 Pg 17, lns 1-25 Pg 18, lns 1-25 Pg 19, lns 1-25 Pg 20, lns 1-25 Pg 21, lns 1-16 Pg 22, lns 3-10 Pg 24, lns 21-25 Pg 25, lns 1-25 Pg 26, lns 1-25 Pg 27, lns 1 and 15-23 Pg 28, lns 3-25 Pg 29, lns 1-25 Pg 30, lns 1-25 Pg 31, lns 1-18 and 24-25 Pg 32, lns 1-8 and 24-25 Pg 33, lns 1-25 Pg 34, lns 1-25 Pg 35, lns 1-8 and 12-25 Pg 36, lns 1-15 Pg 38, lns 1-5 and 16-25 OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

13 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 13 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 39, lns 1-3 and 20-25 Pg 40, lns 1-25 Pg 41, lns 1-25 Pg 42, lns 1-25 Pg 43, lns 1, 4-7, and 11-12 Pg 45, lns 18-25 Pg 46, lns 8-25 Pg 47, lns 1-25 Pg 48, lns 1-7 Pg 49, lns 7-25 Pg 50, lns 1-25 Pg 51, lns 1-8 and 17-25 Pg 52, lns 1-7 Pg 54, lns 10-17 Pg 55, lns 6-25 Pg 56, lns 1 and 9-25 Pg 57, lns 1-7 and 12-25 Pg 58, lns 1-16 and 19-25 Pg 59, lns 1-8, 12-18, and 24-25 Pg 60, lns 1-6, 13-16, and 20-23 Pg 61, lns 1-25 Pg 62, lns 1-25 Pg 63, lns 1-7 and 24-25 Pg 64, lns 1-14 and 20-25 Pg 65, lns 1-25 Pg 66, lns 1-24 Pg 68, lns 20-24

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

14 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 14 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 69, lns 3-9 and 12-25 Pg 70, lns 1-25 Pg 71, lns 1-5 and 10-25 Pg 72, lns 1-25 Pg 73, lns 5-11 and 20-23 Pg 74, lns 11-18 and 24-25 Pg 75, lns 1-25 Pg 76, ln 1 Pg 77, lns 11-25 Pg 78, lns 1-25 Pg 79, lns 1-25 Pg 80, lns 1-25 Pg 81, lns 1-18 and 21-25 Pg 82, lns 1-11 Pg 83, lns 3-15 and 18-25 Pg 84, lns 1-21 Pg 85, lns 3-25 Pg 86, lns 1-25 Pg 87, lns 9-23 Pg 88, lns 4-25 Pg 89, lns 17-20 Pg 90, lns 2-25 Pg 91, lns 1-17 Pg 92, lns 2-24 Pg 93, lns 5-25 Pg 94, lns 1-25 Pg 95, lns 1-25

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

15 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 15 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 96, lns 1-18 Pg 97, lns 24-25 Pg 98, lns 1-11 and 19 Pg 99, ln 25 Pg 100, lns 1-25 Pg 101, lns 6-20 Pg 102, lns 23-25 Pg 103, lns 3-23 Pg 104, lns 14-25 Pg 105, lns 1-9 Pg 107, lns 9-10, 14, and 16-25 Pg 108, lns 1-3, 9-12, and 21-25 Pg 109, lns 1-7 Pg 111, lns 15-16 and 21-25 Pg 112, lns 1-25 Pg 113, lns 1-3 and 8-25 Pg 114, lns 1-25 Pg 115, lns 1-15 Pg 117, lns 22-25 Pg 118, lns 1-25 Pg 119, lns 1-25 Pg 120, lns 1-8 Pg 121, lns 1-25 Pg 122, lns 1-25 Pg 123, lns 1-25 Pg 124, lns 1-15 Pg 125, lns 13-25

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

16 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 16 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 126, lns 1-25 Pg 127, lns 1-22 Pg 128, lns 2-17 Pg 129, ln 25 Pg 130, lns 1-4 Pg 131, lns 4-24 Pg 132, lns 23-25 Pg 133, lns 1-18 Pg 134, lns 11-24 Pg 135, lns 6-25 Pg 136, lns 1-15 and 21-25 Pg 137, lns 10-25 Pg 138, lns 1-14 Pg 139, lns 1-18 and 22-25 Pg 140, lns 1-3 and 24-25 Pg 141, lns 3-11 Pg 142, lns 8-25 Pg 143, lns 1-16 and 25 Pg 144, lns 1-25 Pg 145, lns 1-25 Pg 146, lns 1-25 Pg 147, lns 1-19 and 23-25 Pg 148, lns 1-25 Pg 149, lns 1-15 and 22-25 Pg 150, lns 1-11 and 15-25 Pg 151, lns 1-25 Pg 152, lns 1-5 and 10-25

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

17 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 17 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 153, lns 1-25 Pg 154, lns 1-25 Pg 155, lns 1-25 Pg 156, lns 1-25 Pg 157, ln 1 Pg 158, lns 21-25 Pg 159, lns 1-11 Pg 160, lns 1-22

OBJECTION

PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF DAVID BETTS DESIGNATION Pg 1, ln 1 ­ Pg 2, ln 15 Pg 4, lns 1-17 and 22-25 Pg 5, lns 1-9, 12-20, and 23-25 Pg 6, ln 4 ­ Pg 8, ln 25 Pg 9, lns 1-14 and 21-25 Pg 10, lns 1-25 Pg 11, lns 16-23 Pg 12, lns 14-23 and 25 Pg 13, ln 1 ­ Pg 14, ln 25 Pg 15, lns 1-17 and 23-25 Pg 16, lns 1-6 and 11-25 Pg 17, ln 1 ­ Pg 19, ln 25 Pg 20, lns 1-21 and 24-25 Pg 21, lns 1-3 and 15-25
18 Document 354-4

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 18 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 22, ln 1 ­ Pg 24, ln 9

OBJECTION

PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF LYNN REMELSKI DESIGNATION Pg 11, ln 1 ­ Pg 15, ln 17 Pg 16, lns 5-24 Pg 17, lns 1-25 Pg 18, ln 12 ­ Pg 19, ln4 Pg 20, ln 1 ­ Pg 21, ln 25 Pg 22, lns 1-9 and 16-25 Pg 23, lns 1-15 and 19-25 Pg 24, ln 18 ­ Pg 26, ln 9 Pg 28, lns 18-21 Pg 29, lns 9-23 Pg 31, lns 5-25 Pg 32, lns 1-3 and 23-25 Pg 33, lns 1-9 and 18-25 Pg 34, lns 1-12 and 20-25 Pg 35, ln 1 ­ Pg 36, ln25 Pg 37, lns 1-11 and 22-24 Pg 38, ln 1 ­ Pg 43, ln 20 Pg 44, ln 1 ­ Pg 45, ln 25 Pg 46, lns 1-2 and 11-25 Pg 47, lns 1-6 Pg 48, lns 1-12 and 16-25
19 Document 354-4

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 19 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 49, ln 1 ­ Pg 50, ln 1 Pg 51, ln 8 ­ Pg 52, ln 7 Pg 56, lns 5-23 Pg 57, lns 4-25 Pg 58, ln 10 ­ Pg 59, ln 25 Pg 60, lns 1-9 and 13-25 Pg 61, lns 1-16 Pg 62, ln 9 ­ Pg 63, ln 25 Pg 64, ln 6 ­ Pg 66, ln 7 Pg 67, ln 10 ­ Pg 69, ln 25 Pg 70, lns 1-9 and 13-25 Pg 71, lns 1-13 and 19-25 Pg 72, ln 1 ­ Pg 74, ln 23 Pg 76, lns 2-18 Pg 77, ln 19 ­ Pg 79, ln 25 Pg 80, lns 3-21 Pg 81, ln 3 ­ Pg 82, ln 21 Pg 88, lns 23-25 Pg 89, lns 1-7 and 25 Pg 90, ln 1 ­ Pg 91, ln 25 Pg 92, lns 1-10 and 13-25 Pg 93, lns 1-10 Pg 94, lns 6 -25 Pg 95, lns 1-4 and 7-18 Pg 96, lns 8-25 Pg 97, lns 1-7 and 14-21 Pg 98, lns 3-11 and 14-25

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

20 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 20 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 99, ln 1 ­ Pg 102, ln 25 Pg 103, lns 1-2 and 4-25 Pg 104, lns 1-2, 9-13, and 22-25 Pg 105, lns 19-25 Pg 106, lns 1-3 and 12-25 Pg 107, ln 1 ­ Pg 109, ln 5 Pg 110, ln 2 ­ Pg 112, ln 22 Pg 113, lns 4-25 Pg 114, lns 1-19 and 21-25 Pg 115, ln 1 ­ Pg 116, ln 21 Pg 117, ln 12 ­ Pg 120, ln 25 Pg 121, ln 1 and 9-25 Pg 122, lns 1-5 Pg 123, lns 1-20 Pg 124, lns 3-25 Pg 125, lns 1-11 Pg 133, ln 11 ­ Pg 136, ln 22 Pg 137, ln 15 ­ Pg 139, ln 19

OBJECTION

PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF RENIE REMELSKI DESIGNATION Pg 1, lns 1-25 Pg 3, lns 1-6 and 9-20 Pg 4, ln 1 ­ Pg 5, ln 25 Pg 6, lns 1-2 and 10-25 Pg 7, lns 1-20 OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

21 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 21 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 8, ln 6 ­ Pg 10, ln 17 Pg 11, lns 3-25 Pg 12, lns 1-12 and 23-25 Pg 13, ln 2 ­ Pg 17, ln 25 Pg 18, lns 1-12 and 15-25 Pg 19, ln 1 ­ Pg 22, ln 22 Pg 40, ln 4 ­ Pg 44, ln 5

OBJECTION

PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF DANIEL PEARSON DESIGNATION Pg 1, ln 1 ­ Pg 2, ln 5 Pg 3, lns 1-19 Pg 4, lns 1-4 and 10-12 Pg 5, lns 19-25 Pg 6, lns 1-3 and 6-25 Pg 7, lns 1-25 Pg 8, lns 1-9 and 14-25 Pg 9, ln 1 ­ Pg 10, ln 25 Pg 13, ln 1 ­ Pg 14, ln 25 Pg 15, ln 9 ­ Pg 17, ln 17 Pg 18, lns 1-23 Pg 19, lns 5-19 and 25 Pg 20, lns 1-5 and 14-25 Pg 21, lns 1-9 and 23-25 Pg 22, lns 1-6 Pg 24, ln 22 ­ Pg 26, ln 11 OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

22 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 22 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 28, lns 5-10 and 16-25 Pg 29, lns 1-21 Pg 30, ln 1 ­ Pg 32, ln 6 Pg 33, ln 2 ­ Pg 34, ln 17 Pg 35, ln 2 ­ Pg 37, ln 25 Pg 38, lns 1-9 and 13-25 Pg 39, lns 4-12 and 20-25 Pg 40, lns 1-3 and 20-25 Pg 41, ln 1 ­ Pg 42, ln 24 Pg 43, lns 12-16 and 18-25 Pg 44, ln 1 ­ Pg 47, ln 11 Pg 48, ln 12 ­ Pg 50, ln 23 Pg 51, ln 8 ­ Pg 54, ln 12 and 16-25 Pg 55, lns 1-19 Pg 56, lns 3-25 Pg 57, lns 1-21 Pg 58, ln 2 ­ Pg 59, ln 13 Pg 60, ln 7 ­ Pg 63, ln 1 Pg 63, lns 16-25 Pg 64, lns 1-23 Pg 65, ln 11 ­ Pg 66, ln 25 Pg 67, lns 1-9 and Pg 67, ln 11-Pg 71, ln 25 Pg 72, lns 1-11 and 23-25 Pg 73, ln 1 ­ Pg 75, ln 24 Pg 76, lns 9-20 Pg 77, ln 17 ­ Pg 78, ln 25 Pg 79, lns 16-25

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

23 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 23 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 80, lns 1-12 and 14-25 Pg 81, ln 1 ­ Pg 84, ln 12 Pg 86, lns 17-25 Pg 87, lns 1-9 and 18-25 Pg 88, lns 1-22 Pg 89, ln 18 ­ Pg 94, ln 23 Pg 95, ln 9 ­ Pg 103, ln 17 Pg 104, ln 5 - Pg 107, ln 1 Pg 107, lns 12-14 Pg 109, lns 8-25 Pg 110, lns 8-17 Pg 111, ln 14 ­ Pg 114, ln 25 Pg 115, lns 1-9 and 20-25 Pg 116, ln 1 ­ Pg 117, ln 20 Pg 118, ln 3 ­ Pg 127, ln 23 Pg 128, ln 3 ­ Pg 129, ln18 Pg 130, ln 3 ­ Pg 133, ln 1 Pg 132, ln 3 ­ Pg 137, ln 25 Pg 138, lns 1-10 and 19-25 Pg 139, ln 12 ­ Pg 141, ln 2 Pg 141, ln 8 ­ Pg 143, ln 25 Pg 144, ln 4 ­ Pg 146, ln 21 Pg 147, ln 2 - Pg 155, ln 25 Pg 156, ln 7 ­ Pg 159, ln 2 Pg 159, ln 11 ­ Pg 162, ln 20 Pg 163, ln 16 ­ Pg 164, ln 25 Pg 165, ln 19 ­ Pg 166, ln 20

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

24 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 24 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 167, lns 12 - Pg 169, ln 25 Pg 170, lns 8-15 Pg 171, ln 12 ­ Pg 172, ln 8 Pg 176, ln 22 ­ Pg 178, ln 13 Pg 182, lns 19-23 Pg 183, lns 1-2, 10-14 and 25 Pg 184, lns 1-4

OBJECTION

PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF BARBARA TIMMERMAN DESIGNATION Pg 12, ln 24-Pg 14, ln 23 Pg 17, ln 15 - Pg 20, ln 8 Pg 20, lns 13-15 Pg 21, lns 2-25 Pg 27, lns 1-5 Pg 27, ln 12 - Pg 28, ln 1 Pg 29, ln 1 - Pg 30, ln 5 Pg 40, lns 11-23 Pg 44,ln 24 - Pg 46, ln 8 Pg 52, ln 3 - Pg 53, ln 2 Pg 53, lns 4-16 Pg 55, lns 19-22 Pg 56, lns 4-25 Pg 57, ln 4 - Pg 58, ln 9 Pg 59, ln 25 - Pg 60, ln 19 Pg 61, lns 1-11 OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

25 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 25 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 61, ln 19 - Pg 62, ln 17 Pg 62, ln 21 - Pg 63, ln 5 Pg 63, ln22 - Pg 64, ln 1 Pg 64, lns 18-23 Pg 65, lns 1-25 Pg 66 lns 1, 23-25 Pg 67, lns 4-7 Pg 68, lns 8-16 Pg 69, lns 13-21 Pg 70, ln 14 - Pg 72, ln 25 Pg 73 lns 3-11, 15-22 Pg 77, ln 11 - Pg 80, ln 1 Pg 80, ln 14 - Pg 81, ln 13 Pg 85, ln 5 - Pg 88, ln 8 Pg 88, ln 25 - Pg 89, ln 17 Pg 89, ln 18 - Pg 90, ln 1 Pg 90, ln 2 - Pg 92, ln 2 Pg 92, lns 6-12 Pg 93, ln 1 - Pg 94, ln 25 Pg 95, ln 7 - Pg 96, ln 12 Pg 97, lns 6-7 Pg 98, ln 2 - Pg 99, ln 23 Pg 102, ln 22 - Pg 103, ln 6 Pg 107, ln 16 - Pg 112, ln 4 Pg 129, lns 4-22 Pg 144, ln 10 - Pg 145, ln 5 Pg 145, ln 22 - Pg 147, ln 13

OBJECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

26 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 26 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg 149, ln 6 - Pg 151, ln 2

OBJECTION

PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 4, 2003 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING

DESIGNATION
Pg 110, lns 12 - 19 Pg 111, ln 9 - Pg 112, ln 6

OBJECTION

Pg 112, ln 7 - Pg 115, ln 16
Pg 115, ln 17 - Pg 116, ln 18

Pg 122, lns 22-24 Pg 123, lns 17-22 Pg 124, lns 13-25 Pg 125, lns 10-14 Pg 125, lns 16-21 Pg 126, lns 11-19 Pg 133, lns 1-8
Pg 142, lns 3 - 14 Pg 142, lns 15 - 23

Pg 160, ln 9 - Pg 161, ln 3
Pg 185, ln 22 ­ Pg 186 ln 6 Pg 186, lns 20­24 Pg 187 lns 3 - 10 Pg 188, ln 19 - Pg 189, ln 1

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

27 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 27 of 38

DESIGNATION
Pg 189, lns 6 - 9 Pg 189, lns 15 - 17 Pg 189, lns 16 - 24 Pg 190, ln 10 - Pg 191, ln 4 Pg 192, lns 12 - 16 Pg 193, lns 2 - 4 Pg 204, lns 3 - 10 Pg 218, ln 19 - Pg 219, ln 24

OBJECTION

Pg 225, lns 5-17
Pg 228, lns 9 - 13 Pg 230, ln 6 - Pg 235, ln 9 Pg 236, lns 11 - 16

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING 1. Testimony of Marilyn L. Barrett DESIGNATION Pg. 167, ln 25 ­ Pg. 168, ln 12 Pg. 173, ln 25 ­ Pg. 175, ln 3 OBJECTION S 174:3-13. Objection: leading, FED.R.EVID. 611(c), foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602. This particular question is leading the witness by the designation, "I understand ... [and] is this correct." The witness' answer lacks foundation in that it responds to counsel's question without reference to the amount of senna taken. 174:13-19: Objection: vague, FED.R.EVID. 611, foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602, non-responsive, FED.R.EVID. 611. The question asks the witness whether 28 Document 354-4

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 28 of 38

there are "any tests." The witness responded that the FDA advises against the use of stimulant laxatives without reference to the nature of the FDA's advisory statement, or the type of stimulant laxatives that are the subject of those advisory statements. The witness' statements are also non-responsive because the question asked about "tests" conducted by the FDA, not "statements." 174:20-175:3. Objection: speculation, FED.R.EVID. 60. The question asks the witness to speculate whether it is "possible" that taking an unnamed dosage of senna for over a year would be dangerous. Pg. 176, ln 19 ­ Pg. 177, ln 14 176:22-177:14. Objection: irrelevant, FED.R.EVID. 402, prejudicial, FED.R.EVID. 403. Questions about whether the witness would be concerned about the presence of certain ingredients "as a professional and as a consultant" do not offer expert assistance to the trier of fact on any subject outside of the common understanding of a lay person. 178:1-19. Objection: irrelevant, FED.R.EVID. 402, prejudicial, FED.R.EVID. 403. The order in which ingredients are listed on Awareness' product labels is not relevant, and only tend to mislead the fact finder as to the effect of the ingredients listed first. 178:6-10. Objection: leading, FED.R.EVID. 611(c). 2. Testimony of Mark P. Tahiliani DESIGNATION Pg. 185, ln 22 ­ Pg. 187, ln 10 Pg. 188, ln 19 ­ Pg. 189, ln 1 OBJECTION S S

Pg. 177, ln 21 ­ Pg. 178, ln 19

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

29 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 29 of 38

Pg. 191, ln 16 ­ Pg. 192, ln 12 Pg. 193, ln 5 ­ Pg. 194, ln 4

S 193:5-194:4. Objection: irrelevant, FED.R.EVID. 402. Testimony regarding Awareness' promotion of defendant Mattice during her Awareness distributorship is not relevant to the determination of whether Mattice and the other Distributor Defendants violated the Lanham Act by labeling Mattice as a "certified nutritionist" while each was a distributor for defendant GVI. 198:7-12. Objection: argumentative, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). 198:14-15. Objection: argumentative, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). 198:17-19. Objection: argumentative, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). 200:1-4. Objection: argumentative, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), irrelevant, FED.R.EVID. 402. Counsel's view of the evidence, and what he has "seen" is irrelevant to the determination of whether Awareness acted reasonably in notifying its distributors of its products' ingredient changes.

Pg. 198, ln 6 ­ Pg. 200, ln 11

Pg. 203, ln 17 ­ Pg. 208, ln 7

204:11-16. Objection: argumentative, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). Counsel is telling the witness to stop wasting his time. 209:3-7. Objection: argumentative, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), misstating evidence, FED.R.EVID. 103(c), leading, FED.R.EVID. 611(c). The question asks the witness to admit that Awareness "set about to discredit" the defendants, and assumes evidence not in the record. 210:8-9. Objection: argumentative, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), misstating evidence, FED.R.EVID. 103(c), leading, FED.R.EVID. 611(c), foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602. The

Pg. 209, ln 3 ­ Pg. 211, ln 8

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

30 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 30 of 38

question asks the witness to admit that Awareness gave one of its distributors the "job" to spread fear about the pending lawsuit, and assumes evidence not in the record. 3. Testimony of Dan Pearson DESIGNATION Pg. 228, ln 9 ­ 13 OBJECTION S

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITION OF BARBARA TIMMERMANN, Ph.D. DESIGNATION Pg. 5, ln 8 ­ ln 14 Pg. 7, ln 4 ­ Pg. 12, ln 23 Pg. 16, ln 15 ­ Pg. 17, ln 8 Pg. 22, ln 9 ­ ln 15 Pg. 23, ln 20 ­ Pg. 26, ln 25 OBJECTION S S S S 24:5-11: Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 601(a), non-responsive, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). The question asks the witness whether the potential dangers or risks associated with senna are tied to the dosage. The witness responded that her concern is with the length of use of the product. The witness' testimony is further based, at least in part, upon evidence which has never been authenticated. 25:21-26:13: Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602(a). The witness' testimony is based, at least in part, upon evidence which has never been authenticated. Pg. 30, ln 23 ­ Pg. 32, ln 15 S

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

31 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 31 of 38

Pg. 39, ln 9 ­ Pg. 42, ln 18 Pg. 44, ln 17 ­ ln 23 Pg. 46, ln 10 ­ ln 14 Pg. 47, ln 7 ­ Pg. 48, ln 2 Pg. 50, ln 16 ­ Pg. 51, ln 14 Pg. 51, ln 19 ­ Pg. 52, ln 2 Pg. 52, ln 17 ­ Pg. 53, ln 3 Pg. 58, ln 10 ­ ln 13 Pg. 59, ln 1 ­ ln 13

S S S S S S S S 59:9-13. Objection: non-responsive, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). The question asked the witness to answer whether it was certain that use of senna for one to two weeks was dangerous. The witness responded by saying that she had read additional research after forming that opinion. 59:17-24. Objection: speculation and lack of personal knowledge, FED.R.EVID. 602, 701, foundation, FED.R.EVID. 60. The witness admits that she is not a medical doctor and her opinions on the danger of certain substances is based solely upon certain unspecified "literature." S S 63:13-21. Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 601, speculation and lack of personal knowledge, FED.R.EVID. 602, 701. The witness admits that she is not a medical doctor, has never studied laxative dependency syndrome, and has never treated a patient with laxative dependency syndrome in 61:19-62:12, yet claims to be knowledgeable about the causes and effect of laxative dependency syndrome by reading certain unspecified "literature." 66:2-22. Objection: speculation, FED.R.EVID. 602. The witness' response is based upon her "belief" rather than actual knowledge about the FDA requirements to which Awareness is required to adhere.

Pg. 59, ln 17 ­ ln 24

Pg. 60, ln 20 ­ ln 25 Pg. 61, ln 12 ­ ln 18 Pg. 63, ln 6 ­ ln 21

Pg. 66, ln 2 ­ ln 22

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

32 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 32 of 38

DESIGNATION Pg. 88, ln 12 ­ ln 24 Pg. 96, ln 19 ­ Pg. 97, ln 5

OBJECTION S 96:19-97:5. Objection: non-responsive, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). The witness was asked whether, in her opinion, particular dosages of senna were or were not dangerous. The witness responded by noting that her main concern was that senna was not listed on the label, even though it was an ingredient in the product. S S S S S 119:13-120:23. Objection: irrelevant, FED.R.EVID. 401, 402. The witness is being asked whether a product label does or does not tell consumers to refer an information booklet. The label speaks for itself and expert testimony is neither relevant nor necessary to assist the trier of fact in reading the label. Furthermore, this testimony is beyond the scope of the opinion disclosed by the expert witness pursuant to Rule 26 and is not admissible. 120:25-124:13. Objection: irrelevant, FED.R.EVID. 401, 402. The witness is being asked whether a product label does or does not tell consumers to refer an information booklet. The label speaks for itself and expert testimony is neither relevant nor necessary to assist the trier of fact in reading the label. Furthermore, this testimony is beyond the scope of the opinion disclosed by the expert witness pursuant to Rule 26 and is not admissible. 124:25-125:3. Objection: ambiguous, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602. The question asks the witness to verify that certain unspecified opinions in her report are made to a "reasonable degree of scientific certainty."

Pg. 100, ln 2 ­ Pg. 103, ln 25 Pg. 104, ln 12 ­ Pg. 105, ln 13 Pg. 105, ln 17 ­ ln 22 Pg. 106, ln 15 ­ ln 18 Pg. 106, ln 21 ­ Pg. 107, ln 15 Pg. 119, ln 13 ­ Pg. 120, ln 23

Pg. 120, ln 25 ­ Pg. 125, ln 8

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

33 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 33 of 38

There is no evidence to establish what this term means, and the witness testified earlier that certain opinions were not made with such certainty. Pg. 127, ln 17 ­ Pg. 129, ln 2 127:17-129:2. Objection: ambiguous, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602, speculation, FED.R.EVID. 602. It is unclear what information or studies are the subject of this question. Further, the question asks the witness speculate as to the similarities between studying senna and rhubarb root. The witness testified earlier that she had never studied senna, and any response is therefore speculative. Counsel then asks the witness to verify that certain unnamed sources and publications used in forming her opinion are "verifiable" and reliable. The witness responds that they are, again without reference to which sources she is referring. 129:23-130. Objection: non-responsive. FED.R.EVID. 611(a). The question asks about portions of her opinion. The witness response is directed to her experience in working with botanical dietary supplements. 130:18-6. Objection: ambiguous, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602, speculation, FED.R.EVID. 602. The question asks the witness to speculate as to why the various lab reports show different levels of sennocides in Awareness' products. The witness earlier testified that she was unable to explain the difference, and could only assume the reasons therefor. Furthermore, this testimony is beyond the scope of the opinion disclosed by the expert witness pursuant to Rule 26 and is not admissible. Pg. 135, ln 6 ­ ln 21 135:6-21. Objection: ambiguous, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), foundation,

Pg. 129, ln 23 ­ Pg. 131, ln 6

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

34 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 34 of 38

FED.R.EVID. 602, speculation, FED.R.EVID. 602, irrelevant, FED.R.EVID. 401, 402. The question asks the witness to analyze the instructions found in Awareness' product literature, and to compare that literature to the product labels. The witness earlier testified that she had never seen the Awareness product literature, and any response based upon that literature is therefore speculative. Further, the witness is being asked to read labels and product literature. Her opinion on what those documents say is not necessary to assist the trier of fact. Furthermore, such testimony is beyond the scope of the opinion disclosed pursuant to Rule 26 and therefore inadmissible. Pg. 137, ln 15 ­ Pg. 138, ln 15 137:15-138:15. Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602, speculation, FED.R.EVID. 602, non-responsive, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). The question asks the witness whether her opinion about the alleged dangers of senna are made to a reasonable degree of certainty, without reference to what is "reasonable." The witness' response is limited to the type of dangers she knows to be associated with senna. The witness testified earlier, however, that she has no personal experience with senna, or syndromes resulting from the use thereof, but is basing her opinion upon the review of certain unnamed pieces of literature. The witness' response is also a lengthy narrative regarding what she has read about senna. 139:3-21. Objection: vague and ambiguous, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), compound, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602. The question asks the witness whether taking any amount of senna for a period longer than two weeks is dangerous. The witness earlier testified that she had no opinion about taking low dosages of senna for long

Pg. 138, ln 19 ­ Pg. 139, ln 21

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

35 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 35 of 38

period of time, and admitted that she has no personal experience with senna, or syndromes resulting from the use thereof. The witness further admitted that she is basing her opinion upon the review of certain unnamed pieces of literature. 139:16-22. Objection: leading, FED.R.EVID. 611(c). Pg. 140, ln 1 ­ ln 11 139:3-21. Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602. The question asks the witness whether taking any amount of senna for a period longer than two weeks is dangerous to a person's health. The witness earlier testified that she had no opinion about taking low dosages of senna for long period of time, and admitted that she has no personal experience with senna, or syndromes resulting from the use thereof. The witness further admitted that she is basing her opinion upon the review of certain unnamed pieces of literature. 140:18-141:19. Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602, ambiguous, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). The question asks the witness to opine whether the failure to list senna as an ingredient is inherently dangerous to consumers. The witness' response does not reference what "dangers" the consumers would face, and fails to substantiate the opinion. Moreover, the witness earlier testified that she had no personal experience with senna or patients having complications from short or long term senna use. The witness further admitted that she is basing her opinion upon the review of certain unnamed pieces of literature. Furthermore, such testimony is beyond the scope of the opinion disclosed pursuant to Rule 26 and therefore is inadmissible. 141:11-144:7. Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602, ambiguous, FED.R.EVID.

Pg. 140, ln 18 ­ Pg. 141, ln 9

Pg. 141, ln 11 ­ Pg. 142, ln 7

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

36 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 36 of 38

611(a), relevance, FED.R.EVID. 401, 402. The question asks the witness to opine whether the failure to list senna as an ingredient is inherently dangerous to consumers. The witness' response does not reference what "dangers" the consumers would face, and fails to substantiate the opinion. Moreover, the witness earlier testified that she had no personal experience with senna or patients having complications from short or long term senna use. The witness further admitted that she is basing her opinion upon the review of certain unnamed pieces of literature. Finally, the trier of fact does not need expert testimony to determine whether warnings are or are not on the label. The witness has testified that she is not a label expert. Pg. 142, ln 9 ­ Pg. 143, ln 15 142:9-143:15. Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602, misstating the evidence, FED.R.EVID. 103(c), irrelevant, FED.R.EVID. 402, prejudicial, FED.R.EVID. 403. The question asks the witness to opine whether taking wormwood is generally dangerous, without reference to dosage. The effect of wormwood generally is irrelevant, and tends only to incite and confuse the fact finder. The witness' response further contradicts her expert report, which finds that the levels of thujone, the active ingredient in wormwood, in Awareness' products had no pharmacological effect whatsoever. 143:21-144:9. Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602, ambiguous, FED.R.EVID. 611(a), leading, FED.R.EVID. 611(c). The question asks the witness whether she knows what the FDA requires on labels, without reference to time periods or the types of labels required. The witness' response is generic, and does not specifically reference which warnings are required for which ingredients.

Pg. 143, ln 21 ­ Pg. 144, ln 9

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

37 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 37 of 38

Pg. 151, ln 9 ­ ln 19

151:21-144:9. Objection: foundation, FED.R.EVID. 602, ambiguous, FED.R.EVID. 611(a). The question refers generically to certain "warnings" and asks the witness to opine whether the warnings are adequate. The witness' response is similarly generic in nature, and does not provide a basis for her opinion. Moreover, the witness earlier testified that she was not a label expert. Furthermore, such testimony is beyond the scope of the opinion disclosed pursuant to Rule 26 and therefore inadmissible.

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

38 Document 354-4

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 38 of 38