Village of Stillwater et al v. General Electric Company et al

Filing 295

ORDER. The parties' motions to preclude experts relevant to damages are DENIED; jury trial will begin on 9/19/2016 at 9:30 AM, Pretrial submissions shall be filed by 8/19/2016; and the parties are referred to Magistrate Judge Hummel for settlement discussions. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 4/6/2016. (lah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------TOWN OF HALFMOON and COUNTY OF
SARATOGA,
Plaintiffs,
-v-

1:09-CV-228 (LEAD)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant.
---------------------------------SARATOGA COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY,
Plaintiff,
-v-

1:11-CV-6 (MEMBER)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant.
---------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

NOLAN & HELLER, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Town of Halfmoon
39 North Pearl Street
Albany, NY 12203

DAVID A. ENGEL, ESQ.
SHANNAN COLLIER
KRASNOKUTSKI, ESQ.

DREYER BOYAJIAN LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Saratoga County and
Saratoga County Water Authority
75 Columbia Street
Albany, NY 12210

CRAIG M. CRIST, ESQ.
DONALD W. BOYAJIAN, ESQ.
JAMES R. PELUSO, JR., ESQ.
BENJAMIN W. HILL, ESQ.
WILLIAM J. DREYER, ESQ.

MACKENZIE HUGHES LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
101 South Salina Street
Syracuse, NY 13221

SAMANTHA L. MILLIER, ESQ.

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
725 12th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

NEELUM J. WADHWANI, ESQ.
ROBERT J. SHAUGHNESSY, ESQ.
STEVEN R. KUNEY, ESQ.
CONSTANCE T. FORKNER, ESQ.
JOSEPH G. PETROSINELLI, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge

ORDER
On March 29, 2016, an in-person pretrial status conf erence was held in Utica, New
York with the parties to this matter. At that time, it was noted that a prior
Memorandum–Decision & Order, issued on May 12, 2015, concluded that bifurcation of the
liability and damages issues in this action would be appropriate. ECF No. 276. However,
after further consideration of the governing legal principles, division of these issues would be
unwarranted. See F ED. R. CIV. P. 42(b); see also, e.g., Comput. Assocs. Intern., Inc. v.
Simple.com, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 63, 66-67 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
It is further noted that a recent Memorandum–Decision & Order, issued on March 3,
2016, denied certain of the parties' expert preclusion motions without prejudice to renew,
reasoning that because the proffered testimony at issue was relevant only to a possible
damages trial, a decision was unnecessary at that juncture. ECF No. 292. Given the
conclusion outlined above, a decision on these remaining experts is now necessary. After
careful consideration, a proper application of the governing legal principles—set forth at
length in the March 3 MDO—counsels the denial of those motions on the
merits. Accordingly, those motions will be denied.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
-2-

1. The parties' motions to preclude experts relevant to damages are DENIED;
2. A jury trial in this matter will begin on Monday, September 19, 2016 beginning at
9:30 a.m.;
3. Pre-trial submissions shall be filed by Friday, August 19, 2016; and
4. The parties are referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel for
settlement discussions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2016
Utica, New York.

-3-