Thomas v. Moody

Filing 102

ORDER denying 100 and 101 Motion to exclude expert evidence, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 7/1/15. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION KATHERINE THOMAS, ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:13cv920-WHA ) ) (wo) ) ) Plaintiff, v. DARREN MOODY, et al., Defendants. ORDER This case is before the court on two Motions to Exclude, seeking to exclude expert evidence offered by the Plaintiff (Doc. #100, 101), and filed by the Defendants on June 26, 2015. The Scheduling Order entered in this case set a deadline for filing Daubert motions on or before the dispositive motions deadline, which was 90 days prior to the pretrial hearing set on April 9, 2015. (Doc. #14 at Section 2). By later Order of the court, the case was reset on the September 28, 2015 trial term, with a pretrial date of August 26, 2015 (Doc. #69). That Order did not change the Scheduling Order provision which ties the dispositive motion and Daubert motion deadline to the pretrial order date, and in fact stated that all provisions of the Scheduling Order other than Sections 1, 7, 9, 10, and 11 remain in full force and effect . (Doc. #69). A Motion for Summary Judgment was timely-filed on the dispositive motion deadline, May 26, 2015, which is ninety days before the new pretrial date. The Motions to Exclude expert evidence, having been filed a month after the dispositive motion deadline, are untimely. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions to Exclude (Doc. #100, 101) are DENIED. 1 Done this 1st day of July, 2015. /s/ W. Harold Albritton____________________ W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?