Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 266

NOTICE by Lee Enterprises Incorporated DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S "RESPONSE TO LEE DAMAGE EXPERT DISCLOSURE" (DKT. 258) (Smith, Jeffrey)

Anita Harper Poe
Jeffrey B. Smith
GARLINGTON, LOHN
& ROBINSON, PLLP
350 Ryman Street'P. O. Box 7909
Missoula, MT 59807-7909
Telephone (a06) 523-2500
Telefax [phone]
[e-mail]
j b smith@garlington. com
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

IN TFIE I-INITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TFIE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY.

Cause No.

CV-l I-064-M-DWM

Plaintiff.
V.

BITTERROOT PTIBLIC LIBRARY"
CITY OF HAMILTON, LEE
ENTERPRISES, INC., and BOONE
KARLBERG P.C..

DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES.
INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S
..RESPONSE TO LEE DAMAGE
EXPERT DISCLOS(JRE" (DKT. 258)

Defendants.

Defendant,Lee Enterprises, Inc. ("Lee Enterprises" or "Lee"), through its
counsel, Garlington, Lohn

& Robinson,

PLLP, respectfully submits this Reply to

Plaintiff s "Response to Lee Damage Expert Disclosure" (Dkt. 258).
On March 26,2012, in accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order (Dkt.

227) andFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D), Lee disclosed its darnage

experts. Plaintiff filed a "Response to Lee Damage Expert Disclosure," alleging
the information disclosed is confidential, false, and asks for "court intervention."

Dkt. 258 at 3.

Plaintiff s response is unwarranted
Further, issues discussed in Plaintiff

as Lee did not

s response

file a motion. SeeL.R.7.

go to the weight of the evidence,

not the admissibility. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Primiano v. Cook,598 F.3d 558 (9th

Cir. 2010). The Court has already determined Plaintiff

s medical and employment

history are relevant to this matter (Dkts. 189,244). Plaintiff recognizes the
information is relevant to his claims for damages in the response; arguing
alternative reasons for his difficulty of obtaining employment. See Dkt. 258 at 3.

Accordingly, Court intervention as requested by Plaintiff is not warranted.

DATED this I 7th day of April, 2012.

/s/ Jeffrev B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(dX2)(E),

I certiff that this Defendqnt Lee Enterprises,

Inc.'s Reply To Plaintiff's "Response To Lee Damage Expert Disclosure" (Dkt.
258) is printed with proportionately spaced Times New Roman text typeface

of l4

points; is double-spaced; and the word count, calculated by Microsoft Office Word
2007 ,

is 180 words long, excluding Caption, Certificate of Service and Certificate

of Compliance.

/s/ Jeffrev B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby cerrifu that on the 17th day of April, 2012, a copy of the foregoing
document was served on the following persons by the following means:
Hand Delivery

I

Mail
Overnight Delivery Service
Fax
E-Mail

1.

Michael E. Spreadbury
P.O. Box 416
Hamilton, MT 59840
Pro Se Plaintiff

2.

William L. Crowley
Natasha Prinzing Jones
Thomas J. Leonard
bcrowl ey@boonekarlberg. com
npj ones@boonekarlberg. com
tleonard@boonekarlberg. com
Attorneys for Defendants Bitterroot Public Library, City of Hamilton, and
Boone Karlberg P.C.

lsl

Jeffrev B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.