govinfo:USCOURTS-wiwd-3_23-cv-00588-7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN 
  
 
IEA CONSTRUCTORS, LLC, and 
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY 
ALTERNATIVES, INC., 
 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
 
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., 
 
Defendant. 
ORDER 
 
23-cv-588-jdp 
 
 
After defendant  Westwood Professional Services  submitted voluminous deposition 
designations for 13 witnesses, the court directed Westwood to “narrow its designations to no 
more than an hour of testimony for each witness.” Dkt. 119, at 2. In their objections to 
Westwood’s designations, plaintiffs represented that Westwood did not comply with the order, 
observing that the designations for four witnesses exceed one hour, and the designations for 
two of the witnesses are approximately 2.5 hours. Dkt. 153. So the court directed Westwood 
to show cause why it should not strike the deposition designations for four witnesses (Lauren 
Arecchi, James Allen, Charlie Kalkreuter, and Michael Taylor). Dkt. 168. 
In its response, Westwood does not dispute plaintiffs’ representation that each of the 
designations comprise more tha n one hour of testimony. Instead, Westwood  says that the 
depositions were taken for discovery rather than trial, so Westwood  “was not focused on 
limiting the timeframe of  questioning beyond what is mandated by the Rules of Civil 
Procedure.” Dkt. 177. Westwood asks the court to accept all of its designations , but it does 
not explain why it believes that all of the designated testimony is important or even relevant.  
Case: 3:23-cv-00588-jdp     Document #: 179     Filed: 06/15/26     Page 1 of 3
2 
 
Westwood does not say whether it knew when it took the depositions that the witnesses 
would be unavailable for trial. Regardless, playing lengthy depositions during trial is inefficient, 
ineffective, and creates undue delay. It almost certainly prejudices the party presenting the 
deposition because no jury will be able to remain attentive to two and a half hours of a heavily 
edited video deposition. A party can’t persuade a jury that isn’t listening.  
So the court will give Westwood three options: (1) edit all of its discovery depositions 
down to one hour; (2) take trial depositions lasting no more than one hour of the four 
witnesses; or (3) forgo calling those four witnesses.  
If Westwood chooses option one, Westwood may have until June 22 to submit revised 
deposition designations for the four witnesses. To avoid the possibility of new objections, 
Westwood is limited to testimony that was previously designated.  Any revised deposition 
designations should also include the previously identified counter designations and objections. 
If Westwood chooses option two,  the following conditions will apply: (1)  Westwood 
will be responsible for its own expenses as well as plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses in defending 
the depositions and preparing revised designations  and objections; (2) the depositions must 
occur by July 20; and (3) revised designations, counter designations, and objections  must be 
filed with the court in the same form described in Dkt.  119, at 2, by August 3; and (4) the 
same rules discussed in Dkt. 176, at 8, apply to any application by plaintiffs to the court 
seeking reimbursement for expenses. 
ORDER 
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Westwood Professional Services may have until June 
18 to inform the court which of the options in this order it is choosing regarding the deposition 
Case: 3:23-cv-00588-jdp     Document #: 179     Filed: 06/15/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
designations of Lauren Arecchi, James Allen, Charlie Kalkreuter, and Michael Taylor . If 
Westwood does not respond by June 18, the court will construe Westwood’s silence to mean 
that it is removing those witnesses from its witness list. 
Entered June 15, 2026. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ 
________________________________________ 
JAMES D. PETERSON 
District Judge 
Case: 3:23-cv-00588-jdp     Document #: 179     Filed: 06/15/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight