Amezcua et al v. Jordan Tranport, Inc. et al

Filing 88

ORDER granting ECF No. 85 Motion for clarification : As the Court ruled at the Motion Hearing held on June 16, 2016, Defendants Motion (ECF No. 66 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's non-retained medical providers are stricken as medical experts and rebuttal experts. However, the medical providers may testify as percipient witnesses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/21/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

HUMBERTO AMEZCUA and OCTAVIO
RENE VAZQUEZ CORNEJO,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GERARD BOON, DOES 1 through X, inclusive, )
and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through X,
)
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01608-APG-CWH
ORDER

14
Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Request for Clarification as to Minute Order
15
Regarding Motion to Strike Medical Experts (ECF No. 85). Defendant requests the Court to clarify
16
the scope of its Order (ECF No. 84) regarding Defendant’s Motion to Strike Medical Experts and
17
Rebuttal Experts (ECF No. 66)
18
As the Court ruled at the Motion Hearing held on June 16, 2016, Defendant’s Motion (ECF
19
No. 66) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s non-retained medical providers are stricken as medical experts
20
and rebuttal experts. However, the medical providers may testify as percipient witnesses.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
DATED: June 21, 2016
24
25
26
27
28

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge