Lucido v. Nestle Purina Pet Care Company

Filing 145

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen denying 109 Defendant's Motion to Strike Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Questen. (emclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FRANK LUCIDO, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

v.
NESTLE PURINA PET CARE COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE THE
SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
OF DR. JENA QUESTEN
Docket No. 109

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 15-cv-00569-EMC

13

Defendant Nestle Purina Pet Care Company (“Purina”) has filed a motion to strike the

14

supplemental expert report of Dr. Jena Questen. A hearing was held on the motion on September

15

15, 2016. As the Court indicated at the hearing, Purina’s motion to strike is DENIED. However,

16

the Court shall permit Purina to take a second deposition of Dr. Questen. The deposition shall be

17

telephonic, shall be limited in subject matter to the new matters raised in the supplemental report,

18

shall be no longer than (approximately) 90 minutes in length, and shall be taken no later than

19

September 22, 2016. Costs related to the deposition (other than attorney’s fees) shall be borne by

20

Plaintiffs. Purina shall have until (1) three (3) days after the deposition to file its reply brief in

21

support of its motion to exclude Dr. Questen (see Docket No. 110), or (2) by September 22, 2016,

22

whichever is later.

23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge