Moyle v. Clarke et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying 63 motion to exclude the defendants' experts. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (JDR)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA WILLIAM J. MOYLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, INC., ) ROGER T. CLARKE, and NEBCO, ) INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) v. ) ) MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, INC., and ) ACUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, its ) workers’ compensation insurer,) ) Intervenors/Defendants. ) ______________________________) 8:12CV434 ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff to exclude the testimony of defendants’ expert witnesses (Filing No. 63). clearly states: The Court’s Final Progression Order “Any motion challenging the qualifications of an expert or the admissibility of testimony of an expert witness . . . shall be filed not later than August 15, 2013, in the absence of which any objection based upon said rule shall be deemed waived.” out of time. Plaintiff’s motion of September 11, 2013, was Though the parties agreed to extend the deadline for disclosure of the defendants’ expert witnesses until August 10, 2013, they did not seek an extension of the deadline for motions objecting to the experts or expert testimony. Therefore, the deadline for Daubert motions in the Final Progression Order is the controlling date, and the Court will hold the parties to the schedule and consequences set forth in that order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendants’ experts is denied. DATED this 24th day of September, 2013. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court -2-

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?