Diana Hudson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF 32 by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DIANA HUDSON,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-03284-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER
BRIEF

ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 32

Defendant.

12
13

The court is in receipt of the parties’ joint “discovery” letter brief wherein plaintiff

14

seeks to exclude defendants’ two rebuttal expert disclosures. Having reviewed that

15

briefing and the supporting papers, the court finds that plaintiff’s position lacks merit and

16

therefore DENIES plaintiff’s request.

17

While the court has chosen to rule on plaintiff’s request now in order to permit the

18

parties to effectively prepare for trial, plaintiff’s request would have been more

19

appropriately brought as a motion in limine. The parties are warned that future

20

evidentiary matters should be raised in motions in limine in accordance with the timeline

21

and procedures set forth in the court’s pretrial order. See Dkt. 20.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2019

24
25
26
27
28

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge