NOVELETSKY et al v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY INC et al

Filing 173

ORDER granting 162 Motion to Substitute Expert Witness ; granting 168 Motion to Extend Time to file Daubert Motions on Plaintiffs' Damages Expert By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
HOLLIE T. NOVELETSKY et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. et
al.,

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 2:12-cv-021-NT
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO SUBSTITUTE
EXPERT WITNESS AND FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Hollie T. Noveletsky, Thomas
Heaney and Joshua W. Rosenthal (“Plaintiffs”) motion to substitute one of their
expert witnesses, Lawrence Wood (ECF No. 162), and on the Plaintiffs’ related
motion to extend the Daubert motion deadlines related to the substituted expert
(ECF No. 168).
No one disputes that in late October of 2013, Mr. Wood withdrew his services
from this case citing a new job and a conflict of interest, and that this withdrawal
was beyond the Plaintiffs’ control. Likewise, no one disputes that the Plaintiffs
expeditiously filed a motion to substitute a new expert in Mr. Wood’s place. Rather,
the Defendants object to the motion to substitute on the basis that Mr. Wood’s
testimony, which deals with a portion of the Plaintiffs’ damages analysis, was
rendered irrelevant by the Court’s June 14, 2013 order. Because Mr. Wood’s
testimony would have been irrelevant, the Defendants argue, no purpose would be
served in allowing the Plaintiffs to substitute another expert in his place.

This argument invites the Court to judge the merits of the Defendants’
Daubert motions against Mr. Wood before they have been fully briefed. The
Plaintiffs have good cause to request a substitution of Mr. Wood, and the Court
perceives no unfair prejudice to the Defendants in allowing the substitution. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (providing that a scheduling order may only be modified for
“good cause.”)
The Defendants also object to the possibility of the newly-designated expert
straying from the grounds on which Mr. Wood testified. As a practical matter, it
would be impossible to obtain an expert who agrees solely to serve as a mouthpiece
for another expert’s views—or if it were possible to find such an expert, the
credibility of such an expert might easily be undermined. But the subject-matter of
Mr. Wood’s testimony is presumably well-documented, and the Court will not be
tolerant of any enlargement upon the specific topics about which Mr. Wood has
opined.
Since the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion for substitution, it also grants
the Plaintiffs’ motion for enlargement of the Daubert deadlines related to Mr. Wood
and his soon-to-be-designated successor. The parties are directed to meet and confer
to attempt to reach agreement on proposed amendments to the scheduling order
consistent with the foregoing and to file with the Court, no later than Monday,

2

December 9, 2013, either a joint motion to adopt the same or, absent agreement,
separate motions attaching separate proposed amendments to the scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen
United States District Judge
Dated this 4th day of December, 2013.

3