Abernathy v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 163

ORDER denying 149 deft's renewed Motion to Strike Proposed Expert Reports and Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 5/11/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION WINFER “D.D.” ABERNATHY v. PLAINTIFF 4:08CV04187-BRW UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY DEFENDANT ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO STRIKE PROPOSED EXPERT REPORTS AND EXCLUDE THE PROPOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY There is some merit in Defendant’s Motion to Strike Proposed Expert Reports and Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony (Doc. No. 149), but not enough to cause me to grant it. Defendant may take a 30 minute telephone deposition of each doctor to explore the areas left unexplored during the earlier depositions, as long as the questions are designed to ferret out information Defendant believes it may not have because of the failure of Plaintiff to supplement the reports. Plaintiff is directed to pay the court reporter costs for these depositions. I believe there is some merit in Plaintiff’s opposition to this motion. If Defendant’s counsel believes these depositions reveal a mother lode of information that would have been revealed with a supplemental report, Defendant can file a motion for attorneys’ fees in connection with these depositions. But, truth be told, I would prefer not to hear any more about this issue. So Defendant should not file such a motion unless it discovers a considerable mother lode. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2011. /s/Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?