Wilson v. St. Charles County et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: motions and mediation scheduled 8/26/14. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/14/14. (JWD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. CHARLES COUNTY, et al.,
Case No. 4:11CV790 RWS
Defendant Taser has filed yet another motion in this case, this time a second motion to
exclude certain opinions of plaintiff’s expert Michael Leonesio. The Court is concerned that the
parties are not using their best efforts to prepare for the mediation scheduled on August 26, 2014.
It appears that the parties — and in particular, Taser — may be intending to simply “go through
the motions” of mediation without the requisite good faith in the mistaken belief that the Court
will simply grant its pending motions. Well, I have reviewed all the pending motions, and while
I am not issuing any rulings until after the conclusion of mediation, I can assure the parties that
neither side will be fully satisfied if I am forced to decide these motions. As for the latest
motion, no expert opinions will be offered to the jury unless they were properly disclosed. That
applies to any expert, not just Mr. Leonesio. I also think plaintiff needs to take a careful look at
her complaint filed in this case, because there is no failure to train claim pled against Taser. Both
sides have great risks if this case were to go to trial, which is why mediation can be such an
effective settlement tool if properly used. That means, among other things, that the parties
should assume all motions will be denied, and that they have a realistic understanding of what
their case actually is (and is not). If I get any reports that a party has failed to mediate in good
faith, I will sanction the offending party. This is a case that should be settled, and I expect the
parties to use their best efforts to do just that.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of August, 2014.
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?