Basanti v. Metcalf et al

Filing 156

ORDER: 126 Motion In Limine is DENIED; 131 Motion re Huffman Deposition is GRANTED; 135 Motion to Quash is GRANTED. 137 Motion re Scope of Expert Testimony is DENIED. Discovery cut-off extented to 7/2/13, for completion of depositions only. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 5/1/13. (bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02765-PAB-BNB
DALIP BASANTI,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY METCALF, M.D.,
JASON ROZESKI, M.D.,
PLATTE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, and
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the following:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine to Preclude Disclosure of Subsequent Expert

Witness Report Due to Inadvertent Disclosure [Doc. # 126, filed 4/2/2013] (the “Motion In
Limine”);
(2)

Defendant United States’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Deposition Time Limit

[Doc. # 131, filed 4/9/2013] (the “Motion re Huffman Deposition”);
(3)

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Quash, Motion for Protective Order and

Motion for Immediate Hearing [Doc. # 135, filed 4/9/2013] (the “Motion to Quash”); and
(4)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce F.R.C.P. 30(d)(1) and Request for Expedited

Briefing [Doc. # 137, filed 4/10/2013] (the “Motion re Scope of Expert Testimony”).
I held a hearing on the motions this morning and made rulings on the record, which are
incorporated here.

IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Motion In Limine [Doc. # 126] is DENIED;

(2)

The Motion re Huffman Deposition [Doc. # 131] is GRANTED. The defendants

may reopen the deposition of Dr. Laurence Huffman for an additional 3.5 hours of examination.
The deposition shall occur in person, and not by video conference, at a date, time, and place as
the parties may agree provided the deposition is completed not later than June 10, 2013;
(3)

The Motion to Quash is GRANTED. Although I find that the contract in question

is relevant to matters in dispute of is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, the United States failed to comply with the requirements of Butler v. Biocare Med.
Tech., Inc., 348 F.3d 1163, 1173 (10th Cir. 2003), concerning giving notice of the subpoena.
The United States may obtain the contract pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum upon proper
notice and service;
(4)

The Motion re Scope of Expert Testimony [Doc. # 137] is DENIED; and

(5)

At the parties’ request and on a showing of good cause, the discovery cut-off is

extended to and including July 2, 2013, for the completion of depositions only.
Dated May 1, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2