Boutin v. Newfield Exploration Co et al

Filing 305

MEMORANDUM RULING re 302 MOTION for Reconsideration re 301 Order on Motion to Extend, Telephone Conference, MOTION for Leave to File filed by Brad Boutin. Signed by Judge Rebecca F Doherty on 1/8/2010. (crt,Alexander, E)

Download PDF
RECEIVED JAN ~ 2010 `~J~ NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0567 JUDGE DOHERTY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL TONY A. MOORE, CLERK WESTERN D~STF~COF LOUISIANA T LAFAYETTE LOU~S~ANA BRAD BOUTIN VERSUS NEWFIELD EXPLORATION CO., ET AL. MEMORANDUM RULING Pending before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 302] filed by plaintiff Brad Boutin. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's December 10, 2009 ruling denying plaintiff's motion for extension of the Daubert motion deadline, currently set on December 10, 2009 [Doc. 3011, and seeking permission to file an out-of-time Daubert motion.' In the instant motion, which is unopposed,2 plaintiff explains the testimony sought to be excluded in the attached Daubert motion is the testimony of Grasso's liability expert, Hayden Groth.3 Plaintiff argues the deposition of Mr. Groth was scheduled and noticed to take place on December 18, 2009 at a time when the deadline for Daubert motions was December 30, 2009. However, after the deposition was scheduled and noticed, this Court moved the Daubert motion deadline up to December 10, 2009. Counsel for plaintiff asserts he did not remember the circumstances of this particular situation at the time the Court conducted the December 10, 2009 status conference to address plaintiff's motion for Plaintiff essentially withdrew the motion for extension after the Court explained that the current trial date and pre-trial conference date would not allow for the late filing of any Daubert motions. Therefore, the motion for extension was denied as moot. 2 In the instant motion, plaintiff asserts he has "contacted counsel for Defendant Grasso and intervenor LWCC and neither party has an objection to the granting of this motion." ~According to plaintiff, Mr. Groth is a "Certified Safety Professional." extension, and, therefore, seeks reconsideration of the Court's ruling. Plaintiff has attached his proposed Daubert motion to the instant motion for reconsideration. After consideration of the argument of the plaintiff, the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 302] is GRANTED, and this Court will permit the filing ofthe proposed out-of-time Daubert motion concerning Mr. Groth's testimony. Notwithstanding the foregoing, plaintiff's "Motion to Limit Certain Aspects of Defendant's Expert's Testimony Through Motion in Limine" is DENIED. Plaintiffhas provided no legal support for his argument that in order to give an expert opinion about the cause of an accident, the expert in question must be qualified to consider all of the possible causes of that accident. In its broadest sense, such a rule would be akin to a rule that a medical expert in the area of neurology could not testify at all if he was not qualified to testify about orthopedics, if, in fact, both neurology and orthopedics were involved in the injury. This is not the law. To the extent Mr. Groth testified he cannot opine as to a particular area of potential liability, Mr. Groth will not be allowed to testify as to that particular area. To the extent Mr. Groth's inability to testify to one potential aspect of cause impacts his overall opinion as to the cause of the accident, that is a matter to be handled by counsel on cross-examination. To the extent the entire opinion of Mr. Groth is undercut by his inability to testify as to one potential aspect of cause, and plaintiff is seeking to exclude the entirety ofMr. Groth's testimony, that is a matter that is not before the Court, inasmuch as plaintiff seeks to limit only "certain aspects" of Mr. Groth's testimony. Considering the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Limit Certain Aspects of Defendant's Expert's -2- Testimony Through Motion in Limine is DENIED, pursuant to the foregoing discussion. THUS DONE AND SIGNED in ATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

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?