Quinn v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 79

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
JONESBORO DIVISION
PAULETTE QUINN
v.

PLAINTIFF
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.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
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
unchanged.
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.
So Ordered.
_______________________________
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
19 July 2011