Osckel et al v. Pardee et al

Filing 103

ORDER Denying 97 Motion to Strike New Prime's Designated Expert Witness, Dr. Glenn S. Lipson's January 16, 2013 Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 EDWARD OSKEL, et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) RANDY JAMES PARDEE, et al., ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ ) 18 Designated Expert Witness Report (#97). The Court has considered the Plaintiff’s Motion (#97), the Defendants’ Response (#99), and the Plaintiff’s Reply (#101). DISCUSSION 19 The Plaintiff asserts that New Prime’s Expert Witness Dr. Glenn Lipson’s January 16, 2013, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Strike New Prime’s 16 17 2:11-cv-154-GMN-NJK Report should be stricken for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B) and Daubert. Concerning Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B), the Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Lipson failed to identify all the facts and data he relied upon in forming his opinion. This is incorrect. The Court has reviewed Dr. Lipson’s report and it clearly states which records he reviewed. As for the Daubert argument, the Court finds that a Daubert dispute is more appropriately reserved for a motion in limine and other pre-trial matters, not an emergency discovery dispute. Accordingly, the Emergency Motion to Strike is denied. The deposition of Dr. Glenn Lipson shall proceed as scheduled. ... 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Strike New Prime’s 4 Designated Expert Witness; Report (#97) is DENIED. 5 DATED this 29th day of January, 2013. 6 7 8 9 NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?