Carroll v. Trump

Opinion

USDCSDNY oo □□ Ba Bes eee as pee SE □□ || PDOCUMENT ce □□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i |SELECTRONICALLY FILED. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC Hee uf eas BS aay Fadi □□□□ □□ □□ □□ | □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ TTDATE FILED: A PMUA034 | E. JEAN CARROLL, coat fe eae □□ Plaintiff, MINS APA AEA TEE SHOT! LEER □□□

-against- 20-cv-7311 (LAK)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his personal capacity, Defendant. eee ee ee eR □□ ee ee

ORDER RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS

LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. The Court’s rulings on the objections noted by the parties to the designations and counter-designations of certain portions of Mr, Trump’s deposition are set forth in the attached schedule. The notation “deferred” means that the Court reserves decision on the objection until it issues its ruling on the parties’ outstanding evidentiary motions. The Court overrules Mr. Trump’s broad objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 to the use of any portion of his deposition transcript. His contention that its use would be improper because he is listed as a possible witness is utterly frivolous. Rule 32(a)(3) provides that an “adverse party may use for any purpose the deposition of a party,”! whether they are available to testify live or not. Thus, Ms. Carroll will be permitted to play her otherwise admissible deposition designations at trial even were Mr. Trump to testify. With respect to Ms. Carroll’s objections to Mr. Trump’s counter-designations, the Court again has sustained those objections that it has determined are inappropriate under Rule 32(a)(6), which allows a party to cross-designate and “introduce [only] other parts [of a deposition] Fed R. Civ. P. 32(a}(3) (emphasis added); see also Wei Yan Yan v. 520 Asian Rest. Corp., No. 13-CV-2417 (KNF), 2014 WL 4378746, at *4 (SDNY. Sept. 4, 2014) (broadly defining “any purpose”); Keawsri v. Ramen-Ya Inc., No. 17-CV-2406 (LIL), 2022 WL 2391692, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2022) (“it is quite immaterial that the adversary is availabie to testify at the trial or has testified there”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

that in fairness should be considered with the part introduced.” Mr. Trump attempts to include as counter-designations testimony that already was rejected on this basts in Carroll H, and the Court incorporates its earlier order in that case to the extent relevant.’

SO ORDERED. Dated: January 4, 2024 [4 Lewis A. Kaplfn United States District Judge Dkt 158, Carroll v. Trump, No, 22-CV-10016 (LAB) (Carroll ID.

A. Plaintiff’s Designations of Defendant’s Deposition and Defendant’s Objections

81:21 - 83:2 FRE 402, 403, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. Trump, to damages only.

168:20 - 168:25 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carrol] y, limiting trial to damages only. 169:4 - 169:6 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. Trump, No, 20 Civ. 7311 (Sept. 6, 2023), ECF 214 Deferred limiting trial to “mages only. 169:8 - 169:21 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. Deferred Trump, No. 20 Civ. 7311 (Sept. 6, 2023), ECF 214 limiting trial to damages only. 170:2 - 170:4 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. Deferred Trump, No, 20 Civ. 7311 (Sept. 6, 2023), ECF 214 eo | “ame eee 174:5 - 174:21 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. Deferred Trump, No. 20 Civ. 7311 (Sept. 6, 2023), ECF 214 limiting trial to damages only. 176:8 - 176:11 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. Sustained Trump, No. 20 Civ, 7311 (Sept. 6, 2023), ECF 214 limiting trial to damages only. 180:23 - 181:9 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. limiting trial to damages only. 181:11 - 18i:14 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, CarroiZ/ y. limiting trial to damages only. 182:23 - 183:2 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. Sustained Trump, No. 20 Civ. 7311 (Sept. 6, 2023), ECF 214 limiting trial to damages only. 183:25 - 184:9 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. Sustained Trump, No. 20 Civ. 7311 (Sept. 6, 2023), ECF 214 limiting trial to damages only. 184:13 - 184:22 FRE 402, 403, 404, Memorandum Opinion, Carroll v. Sustained Trump, No. 20 Civ. 7311 (Sept. 6, 2023), ECF 214 limiting trial to damages only.

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP

B. Defendant’s Counter-Designations and Plaintiff's Objections Defendant’s Counter-Designations. . “| Plaintiff's Objections . FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 1067, 402, 403; Memorandum 25-51: Sustained , 50:25 - 51:6 ustaine Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 . . . FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum 51:8 - 51212 Sustained Opinion on Collateral Estoppe!, ECF 214 53:11 - 53:24 Overruled FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402 Sustained FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum . . . eee . . 4 4 3 3 59:20 (starting with “it was”) - 56:5 Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214

FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 602, 802; Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 60:3 - 60:18 Sustained 214 No objection to 60:3 - 60:5 67:10 - 67:18 Overruled FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 FRCP 32(a}(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum ‘4-71: Sustained Tid - 11:24 “seam Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP Defendant’s Counter-Designations | Plaintiff's Objections □□ cs FRCP 32(a}(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 602, 802; Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214; see also Carroll £7, Memorandum and Order on 72:6 - 72:10 Sustained Plaintiff's Jn Limine Motion, ECF 95 at 21 (precluding Trump from “giving .., testimony concerning information allegedly known to persons whom he has not disclosed”) FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 602, 802; . . Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 724 - 73:16 Sustained 214; see also Carrell H, Memorandum and Order on Plaintiff's Jn Limine Motion, ECF 95 at 21 FRCP 32(a}(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 602, 802; . . Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 73:18 - 73:20 Sustained 214; see also Carroll IJ, Memorandum and Order on Plaintiff's in Limine Motion, ECF 95 at 21 Sustained FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 602, 802"; 77:14 (starting with “And if’) - 78:5 | Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 FCRP 32(a}(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum ‘4-80: Overruled 80:4 - 80:16 verse Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 FRCP 32(2)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 412, 602, 802; 91:3 - 91:15 Sustained Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214

. FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum -29 117: Sustained 116:22 - 17:4 msraue Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 . □ . FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum H19:5 - 119322 Sustained Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 . FRCP 32(a}(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum 24 - : Sustained , 119:24 - 120:15 _ Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 BLS - B19 Sustained FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 134:19 - 134:24 Sustained FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 602, 802

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP Defendant’s Counter-Designations : Plaintiff's. Objections ee FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 602; 139-8 - 139724 Sustained Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 602; 141;3 - 14120 Sustained Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214 146-22 - 1472 Sustained FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214

172:3 - 172:10 (Defendant designates only because the issue of whether the “Access Hollywood” tape is admissible at trial | No objection remains pending before this Court, and Plaintiff's designations on this issue, and reserves all rights on appeal) 174:22 - 175:4 (ending with “people talk”) (Defendant designates only because the issue of whether the “Access + att No object. Hollywood” tape is admissible at trial 0 opyeeen remains pending before this Court, and Plaintiff's designations on this issue, and reserves alf rights on appeal) 176:12 - 176:17 (ending with “remember it) (Defendant designates only because the issue of whether Natasha Stoynoff’s testimony, and evidence relating to said | No objection testimony, is admissible at trial remains pending before this Court, and Plaintiffs designations on this issue, and reserves all rights on appeal)

176:19 (starting with “a long time”) - 177:4 (ending with “phony charge”) (Defendant designates only because the issue of whether Natasha Stoynoff’s testimony, and evidence relating to said | No objection testimony, is admissible at trial remains pending before this Court, and Plaintiff's designations on this issue, and reserves all rights on appeal) 183:13 - 183:23 (ending with “disgrace, also.”) (Defendant designates only because the issue of whether Jessica Leeds’s testimony, and evidence relating to said | No objection testimony, is admissible at trial remains pending before this Court, and Plaintiff's designations on this issue, and reserves all rights on appeal) 185;3 - 187:3 Sustained (Defendant designates only because the issue of whether Jessica Leeds’s testimony, and evidence relating to said | 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 602, 802 testimony, is admissible at trial remains ° eee pending before this Court, and Plaintiff's designations on this issue, and reserves all rights on appeal} 191:25 - 192:22 (Defendant designates only because the issue of whether Jessica Leeds’s testimony, and evidence relating to said No objection testimony, is admissible at trial remains pending before this Court, and Plaintiffs designations on this issue, and reserves all rights on appeal) . FRCP 32(a\(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum

. . □ FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403; Memorandum

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP Defendant’s Counter-Designations Plaintiff's Objections: FRCP 32(a)(6); FRE 106, 402, 403, 602; 215:3 - 215:19 Sustained Memorandum Opinion on Collateral Estoppel, ECF 214