Quinn v. Ford Motor Company et al
ORDER denying 73 MOTION to Extend Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure Deadline. Quinn must identify her experts & provide their opinions by 7/22/11. All other deadlines remain unchanged. As to Autoliv, the record is now clear that this company ha d nothing to do with the seatbelts or the pretensioners & the Court dismisses all claims against Autoliv without prejudice. Autoliv's 68 MOTION to Extend Time to file a late answer is denied as moot. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/19/2011. (jct)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Case No. 3:09-cv-26-DPM
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, d/b/a and f/k/a
Jaguar Cars; TRW VEHICLE SAFETY
SYSTEMS, INC.; TRW AUTOMOTIVE
SAFETY SYSTEMS ARKANSAS, INC.;
JAGUAR CARS LIMITED; JOHN DOES 4–10;
JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC;
and AUTOLIV ASP, INC.
Quinn’s motion for a short extension of her expert disclosure deadline,
Document No. 73, is denied. We are too deep in the case for a complete shift
in focus from the airbags to pretensioners. As best the Court can tell, the
information about pretensioners gained during the Autoliv deposition echoed
information already in Quinn’s possession. Quinn must identify her experts
and provide their opinions by 22 July 2011. All other deadlines remain
As to Autoliv, the record is now clear that this company had nothing to
do with the seatbelts or the pretensioners. Document No. 76-1. The Court
therefore takes Quinn at her word, Document No. 73 at 4, and dismisses all
claims against Autoliv without prejudice. Autoliv’s motion to file a late
answer, Document No. 68, is denied as moot.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
19 July 2011
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?