Tucker et al v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Filing 80

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S DAUBERT MOTIONS (denying 79 Motion to Shorten Time as moot). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GREGORY K. TUCKER, et al., Case No. 15-cv-03930-HSG Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S DAUBERT MOTIONS v. 9 WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 79 12 13 On October 11, 2016, Defendant Wright Medical Technology filed four Daubert motions 14 to exclude testimony, see Dkt. Nos. 60-67, and five other motions in limine, see Dkt. Nos. 68-72. 15 On October 13, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to shorten time to hear Defendant’s Daubert 16 motions. See Dkt. No. 79. 17 The Court construes Defendant’s Daubert motions as motions in limine under the Court’s 18 Civil Pretrial and Trial Standing Order. Accordingly, Defendant’s Daubert motions will be heard 19 at the November 1, 2016 pretrial conference. See Civil Pretrial and Trial Standing Order ¶ 24. 20 Plaintiffs may file responses of no more than twenty-fives pages each by October 24, 2016, and 21 Defendant will not be permitted a reply. See id. ¶ 23. In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES 22 AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to shorten time. Dkt. No. 79. 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10/14/2016 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 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?