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)

Download PDF
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

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?