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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NICOLE MOORE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

22-cv-8899 (AS)

PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION
OF AMERICA, INC. et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge:
On April 9, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to preclude 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 for 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, preclusion is
no longer necessary. The Court will not preclude the report on these procedural grounds. However,
the costs of Defendants’ deposition of Plaintiff’s 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.
Dated: May 8, 2024
New York, New York

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN
United States District Judge