Cook v. The Hughston Clinic, P.C. et al
ORDER re Defendants' 49 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Supplemental Expert Report. It is ORDERED that on or before 2/8/2015, the plaintiff shall file a response which informs the court whether the CAT scans identified in Dr. Tonk s' amended supplemental report are the same images referred to as "a few of the radiological images" in his supplemental expert report. The court reserves ruling on the defendants' 49 Motion to Strike until the plaintiff's response is received. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/28/2015. (dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
THE HUGHSTON CLINIC, P.C., et al.,
CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:14cv296-WKW
Now pending before the court is the Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Amended Supplemental Expert Report (doc. # 49) filed on January 22, 2015.1
In his supplemental expert witness report, Dr. Tonks indicated that he had reviewed
diagnostic images including radiographs and CT scans. (Doc. # 41, Ex. 1, p.1). He further
[t]he exhibits which will be used to support my opinions are a few of the
radiological images. These images are post-operative films. This letter will
be offered as a summary of my opinions, and a copy of the board summary will
be forwarded to you in time for you to get it to the defendants’ attorney in time
for him to consider it prior to taking my testimony.
(Id. at p. 2)
In his amended supplemental report which was provided to the defendants just prior
to oral argument on the defendants’ third motion to strike, Dr. Tonks specifically identified
Because the plaintiff did not provide the defendants with the amended supplemental report until
immediately before oral argument on the defendants’ other motion to strike, the substance of this motion to
strike was argued but a written motion to strike was not filed until after the argument.
the radiological images he reviewed.
The exhibits which will be used to support my opinions are a few of the
radiological images. The CAT scans taken post operatively on December 1
and December 2, 2011; Indicate the screws are positions to injure the nerves.
This letter will be offered as a summary of my opinions.
(Doc. # 49, Ex. A, p.2).
In his supplemental expert report, Dr. Tonks initially refers to “a few of the
radiological images.” He then uses the same language in his amended supplemental report
but then he identifies CAT scans taken post operatively on December 1 and December 2,
2011. It is unclear whether the December 1 and 2 images are the same images he refers to
as “a few of the radiological images.”
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that on or before February 8, 2015, the plaintiff shall file a response
which informs the court whether the CAT scans identified in Dr. Tonks’ amended
supplemental report are the same images referred to as “a few of the radiological images” in
his supplemental expert report.
The court reserves ruling on the defendants’ motion to strike (doc. # 49) until the
plaintiff’s response is received.
Done this 28th day of January, 2015.
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?