Lord Corporation v. Hultec S&B Technical Products, Inc. et al

Filing 612

ORDER denying 445 Defendants' Motion to Exclude opinions and testimony of plaintiff's expert Charles A. Daniels. Signed by US District Judge James C. Dever III on 9/12/2011. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

No.5:09-CV-205-D

LORD CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

)

)
)
)

)

~

ORDER

)

S&B TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, INC.,
TERRAMIX S.A., and MARK A. WEill,

)
)
)

Defendants.

)

On February 16,2011, defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude opinions and testimony

of plaintiffs expert Charles A. Daniels [D.E. 445]. On March 9,2011, plaintiff responded to the
motion [D.E. 459]. On March 9, 2011, this court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Gates for
a memorandum and recommendation. On August 5, 2011, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 576].

In that M&R, Judge Gates

recommended that defendants' motion to exclude opinions and testimony of plaintiffs expert
Charles A. Daniels be denied. On August 15,2011, defendants filed objections to the M&R [D.E.
587]. On August 25,2011, plaintiff responded to defendants' objections [D.E. 598].
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo detennination of
those portions ofthe [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416F.3d310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (emphasis removed) (quotation omitted). Absent a timely
objection, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id.
(quotation omitted).

The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, defendants' objections, and plaintiff's response
to the objections. As for those portions of the M&R to which defendants made no objection, the
court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
The court has reviewed de novo the portions ofthe M&R to which defendants objected. The
court overrules the objections and adopts the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 576]. Defendants'
motion to exclude opinions and testimony of plaintiff's expert Charles A. Daniels [D.E. 445] is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED. This..L1.. day of September 2011.

~~:bAV~
JSC.DEVERll
Uruted States District Judge

2