M-Edge International Corporation v. LifeWorks Technology Group LLC

Filing 104

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 87 Motion to Strike ; denying 88 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 8/1/2016. (ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
M-EDGE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff

*
*

vs.

*

LIFEWORKS TECHNOLOGY
GROUP LLC,

*
Defendant

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-14-3627

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO STRIKE

*

The Court has before it Defendant Lifeworks’ Motion to
Strike Portions of Expert Report [ECF No. 87], Plaintiff M-Edge
International Corporation’s Motion to Strike Portions of
Lifeworks’ Expert Report [ECF No. 88] and the materials
submitted relating thereto.

The Court finds a hearing

unnecessary.
In the Revised Scheduling Order [ECF No. 75], the Court
provided for expert discovery commencing May 23,1 with summary
judgment motions to be field by July 18.

However, the Court has

issued the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order [ECF No. 102]
extending the dates for deposing expert witnesses and filing
summary judgment motions “until 45 days after the Court decides”
the instant motions.

1

All dates referred to herein are in the year 2016.

Initially, it must be noted that neither side actually
presents a motion to strike.

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure provides:
The court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.
The objects of the motions are not pleadings.
P. 7(a).2

Fed. R. Civ.

Nor do their contents, even arguably, warrant striking

under Rule 12(f).
The motions are, in reality, motions in limine.
the Court finds them premature.

As such,

Neither report in question will

be admissible, per se, as evidence.

The testimony of the

authors of the reports may well be subject to objection for
reasons stated in the instant motions.

However, these

objections shall be determined in the context the testimony is
offered and in light of the deposition testimony of the witness
that may explain or vary from the report.
The parties shall proceed with depositions of the authors
of the reports.

If any summary judgment motions are filed and a

party seeks to rely upon an expert opinion in support of its
position, the Court will determine, in context, whether the

2

See, e.g., Jarvis v. FedEx Office & Print Servs., Inc.,
No. CIV.A. DKC 08-1694, 2011 WL 826796, at *5 (D. Md. Mar. 7,
2011), aff’d sub nom. Jarvis v. Fedex Office & Print Servs.,
Inc., 442 F. App’x 71 (4th Cir. 2011).

2

opinion constitutes admissible evidence.

If the case proceeds

to trial, the parties shall be provided the opportunity to file
any appropriate motions in limine.
Accordingly,
1.

Defendant Lifeworks’ Motion to Strike Portions of
Expert Report [ECF No. 87] is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff M-Edge International Corporation’s
Motion to Strike Portions of Lifeworks’ Expert
Report [ECF No. 88] is DENIED.

3.

The parties shall complete expert discovery by
September 29.

4.

Any summary judgment motions shall be filed by
October 28.

SO ORDERED, on Monday, August 01, 2016.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3