Moore v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. et al
Filing 72
ORDER terminating 54 Motion for Reconsideration re 54 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 53 Order on Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference, . filed by Nicole Moore. On April 9, 2024, the Court granted Defendants motion to preclu de Plaintiff's expert. Dkt. 53. The prejudice that Defendants had identified (and that the Court relied on in making its decision) was that the summary-judgment deadline was fast approaching. Id. On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion fo r reconsideration. Dkt. 54. And Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on April 29, 2024. Dkt. 58. Even without an expert, Defendants' summary-judgment brief did not argue that Plaintiff had insufficient evidence of damages or the other issues on which Plaintiff's expert might have testified. See Dkt. 61. As such, the original purported prejudice is no longer apparent. Although Plaintiff violated a number of rules and deadlines in serving this late expert report, prec lusion is no longer necessary. The Court will not preclude the report on these procedural grounds. However, the costs of Defendants deposition of Plaintiffs expert, if Defendants choose to take a deposition, will be borne by Plaintiff. The parties should meet and confer to promptly hold this deposition. Further, Plaintiff's expert's testimony is limited to the report previously served on Defendants, and the Court will provide an exception to its individual practices to permit Defendants to file a motion to exclude this expert as part of their motions in limine. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. 54. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 5/8/2024) (jca)
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.