Strong et al v. Snyder et al

Filing 227

ORDER denying 195 Motion in Limine; denying 197 Motion in Limine; sustaining 199 Motion in Limine; sustaining 201 Motion in Limine; denying 207 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 3/24/10 (scp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION

GEORGE STRONG, JR., AND JEAN HANCOCK, ET AL VS. DEANNA SNYDER, INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR COMPANY ORDER This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motions in Limine as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. To exclude the testimony of Roland Brown [199]. To exclude the testimony of Mark Ezra [195]. To exclude the testimony of James J. Hannah [197]. Defendants' general Motion in Limine [201]. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Dinesh K. Goel, M.D. [207]. The Court finds as follows: That the Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Roland Brown [199] should be and is hereby sustained. Additionally, Plaintiff have stated that Roland Brown will not be called as a witness. Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Mark Ezra [195]. The Court finds that the Motion to Exclude is, in fact, a Daubert motion. The brief filed herein states the Daubert standard and cites Federal Rule of Evidence 702. L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(2)(C) provides that all CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv145-KS-MTP

motions challenging an opposing party's expert must be filed no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the discovery deadline. This motion is not timely filed and is denied.. Additionally, the Defendants do not challenge the qualifications of Mr. Ezra, but challenge his methodologies and factual background. The Defendants may not like what the Plaintiffs' witness says, but in this case, his testimony will not be stricken. However, his testimony will be subject to full bore cross-examination and he must remain within the parameters of his pre-disclosed opinions. Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of James Hannah [197]. The Court finds that the Motion to Exclude is, in fact, a Daubert motion. The brief filed herein states the Daubert standard and cites Federal Rule of Evidence 702. L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(2)(C) provides that all motions challenging an opposing party's expert must be filed no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the discovery deadline. This motion is not timely filed and is denied. Additionally, the Defendants do not challenge the qualifications of Mr. Hannah, but challenges his methodologies and factual background. The Defendants may not like what the Plaintiffs' witness says, but in this case, his testimony will not be stricken. However, his testimony will be subject to full bore cross-examination and he must remain within the parameters of his predisclosed opinions. Defendants' General Motion in Limine [201]. Paragraph 4 of Defendants' Motion in Limine is sustained; paragraph 5 is sustained; paragraph 6 is sustained; paragraph 7 sustained; paragraph 8 is sustained; paragraph 9 is sustained; and paragraph 10 is sustained. Irrespective of the rulings made herein, this Court recognizes that certain things may come out in the testimony that would cause this Court to reconsider the above rulings on Defendants' General Motion in Limine. The parties are allowed to reurge evidence excluded hereby if by the testimony it is shown to be relevant and admissible under the Rules of Evidence. Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Dinesh K. Goel, M.D. [207]. The Court

finds that the Motion to Exclude is, in fact, a Daubert motion and should be denied. SO ORDERED on this, the 24th day of March, 2010.

s/ Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE