Millard Gutter Company et al v. Depositors Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MILLARD GUTTER COMPANY, a
Corporation; and GILLICK ENTERPRISES,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
4:23CV3016
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Depositors’ Counter-Designations of Deposition of
David Heller (Filing No. 134) and Plaintiffs’ Objection to Depositors’ Counter-Designations of
Deposition of David Heller (Filing No. 136). Defendant has highlighted numerous objections
they made during the deposition in their counter-designations (Filing No. 134). Per the
conversation with counsel this morning, this is to preserve and have rulings made by the court
regarding these portions of the transcript. The parties’ objections to the deposition designations
and counter-designations will be overruled subject to the following caveats and the Court’s prior
order on deposition designations.
Lack of Foundation
Defendant’s objections as to foundation for the following deposition designations are
sustained:
51:15-19 Objection sustained for lack of foundation, the objected-to testimony may not be
read into the record.
174:15-175:4 Objection sustained for lack of foundation, the objected-to testimony at 174:15-
25, 174:4 may not be read into the record.
All other objections contained in Defendant’s blanket objection on the basis of foundation
on the basis of foundation to Plaintiff’s deposition designations and contained in the Defendant’s
counter-designations are overruled.
4:23-cv-03016-SMB-JMD Doc # 137 Filed: 03/02/26 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
Speaking Objections and Other Objections by Counsel
Plaintiffs’ objections as to speaking objections are sustained. No speaking objections or
any objections made by either side may be read into the record.
Motion in Limine
Anything pertaining to the evidence excluded by the Court’s order on the motion in
limine (Filing No. 131), will be excluded. The following testimony may not be read into the
record:
62:13-16 This testimony will be excluded pursuant to the Court’s order on Defendant’s
Motion in Limine, which excluded evidence of the confession of judgment in
Millard Gutter Company, Gillick Enterprises, Inc. & Gross Point Holdings LLC
v. Depositors Insurance Company, 8:18CV23. (See Filing No. 131 at 7-8.)
78:10-23 This testimony will be excluded pursuant to the Court’s order on Defendant’s
Motion in Limine, which excluded evidence of the confession of judgment in
Millard Gutter Company, Gillick Enterprises, Inc. & Gross Point Holdings LLC
v. Depositors Insurance Company, 8:18CV23. (See Filing No. 131 at 7-8.)
78:25-79:12 This testimony will be excluded pursuant to the Court’s order on Defendant’s
Motion in Limine, which excluded evidence of the confession of judgment in
Millard Gutter Company, Gillick Enterprises, Inc. & Gross Point Holdings LLC
v. Depositors Insurance Company, 8:18CV23. (See Filing No. 131 at 7-8.).
Irrelevant Attorney Comments and Evidence
Plaintiff’s objections as to relevance of Defendant’s counter-designations will be
sustained as to the below identified designations. All other objections as to relevance are
overruled. The following lines of deposition may not be read into the record:
57:22-58:6; 58:20-59:2; 59:7-16; 68:11-69:24; 71:20-72:7; 75:5-10; 75:13-14; 75:16-
17; 76:6-11; 77:4-13; 172:4-20; 173:18-174:3.
4:23-cv-03016-SMB-JMD Doc # 137 Filed: 03/02/26 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
Additionally, the following designation, which was highlighted in the deposition
transcript attached to Defendant’s filing, but not formally designated in their counter-
designations, may not be read into the record due to lack of relevance: 178:20-24.
Defendant’s objections as to relevance of Plaintiff’s deposition designations will be
sustained as to the following designations: 174:15-20.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________
Susan M. Bazis
United States District Judge
4:23-cv-03016-SMB-JMD Doc # 137 Filed: 03/02/26 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>