Lynch v. Barrett et al
Filing
42
MINUTE ENTRY for Status Conference held before Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 2/16/2012.Granting 37 Motion to Strike; Denying 12 Motion to Dismiss. (Court Reporter: Kara Spitler) (lag)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
JUDGE R. BROOKE JACKSON
Courtroom Deputy: Laura Galera
Court Reporter:
Kara Spitler
Date: February 16, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01120-RBJ-MEH
Parties:
Counsel:
NICK LYNCH,
Robert M. Liechty
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM BARRETT,
STEPHEN KENFIELD,
MICHAEL MORELOCK,
ABBEGAYLE DORN, and
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
L. Douglas Jewell
Reid Elkus
Wendy J. Shea
Defendants.
COURTROOM MINUTES
STATUS CONFERENCE
1:59 p.m.
Court in Session.
Opening remarks by the Court.
Argument by Mr. Liechty and Ms. Shea as to the Motion to Strike Untimely Expert Designations
or in the Alternative to Amend Scheduling Order Deadlines and Continue Trial Date Doc.#[37].
Discussion regarding the deposition testimony of Officer Dorn.
For the reasons as stated on the record it is:
ORDERED: The Motion to Dismiss Doc.# [12] is DENIED subject to the findings made on the
record. The Court tentatively denies the judicial estoppel motion pending review
of the deposition testimony and the videotaped statement.
ORDERED: Motion to Strike Untimely Expert Designations or in the Alternative to Amend
Scheduling Order Deadlines and Continue Trial Date Doc.#[37].
is GRANTED.
Given the Court’s ruling, Mr. Liechty requests the identified doctors be allowed to testify as
nonexperts.
Ms. Shea has no objection as long as the doctors do not provide any opinions as to causation.
ORDERED: The identified doctors can testify they saw the patient, what they did to treat or
diagnose him, and what treatment they prescribed as a treating physician. They
can not express opinions beyond that.
2:50 p.m.
Court in Recess.
Hearing concluded.
Total time:
00:51
2
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?