Cook v. The Hughston Clinic, P.C. et al
ORDER that the defendants' 49 Motion to Strike be and is hereby DENIED as further set out in the order. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/9/2015. (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.
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.
(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
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.
(Doc. # 49, Ex. A, p.2).
On February 6, 2015, the plaintiff confirmed that the CAT scans Dr. Tonks identified
in his amended supplemental expert report were the same radiological images that he
referenced in his December 11, 2014, supplemental expert report. Because Dr. Tonks’
amended supplemental report simply identified the diagnostic imaging he reviewed more
explicitly, it did not present or rely on any new or previously unidentified information.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to strike (doc. # 49) be and is hereby
Done this 9th day of February, 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?