Elabd v. Taylor et al

Filing 87

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 76 Motion in Limine and denying 77 Motion in Limine, both Motions are DEEMED WAIVED; denying as moot 85 Motion for Hearing; denying as moot 86 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 03/27/2014. (KAW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
SARAH KATE FALLEN ELABD,
Plaintiff,
v.
LYNN THOMPSON TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-CV-447-PLR-HBG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court are two Daubert motions: (1) Cross-Plaintiff, Lynn Thompson
Taylor’s Motion to Exclude Defendants Bradley Poarch and Lynn Poarch’s Proposed Expert
Testimony of Don R. Moore, P.E. [Doc. 76]; and (2) Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs
and Co-Defendant’s Expert Witnesses [Doc. 77]. Defendants have objected to Ms. Taylor’s
motion and argued that because the motion was filed on March 13, 2014, it was not timely under
the Scheduling Order. [See Doc. 86]. The Defendants do not speak to the timeliness of their
own motion, which was filed March 14, 2014.
This case is set to proceed to trial on June 10, 2014. In the Scheduling Order entered on
May 21, 2013, the Court stated, “In the event that either party wishes to challenge the relevance
or reliability of expert testimony, a motion for a Daubert hearing must be filed not later than
ninety (90) days before trial or it will be deemed waived.” [Doc. 33 at 2]. On August 28, 2013,
the Court entered an Order, which directed the parties to “continue to comply with the dates,

deadlines, and processes laid out in the Scheduling Order [Doc. 33] and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.”
The deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order may be modified through a showing of
good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Neither of the parties has attempted to present good cause
for their failure to comply with the Scheduling Order. The Court is aware that a Motion to
Amend the Scheduling Order [Doc. 79] is pending. This motion, however, does not ask the
Court to continue the trial in this matter, nor does it move the Court to extend the expired
deadline for filing Daubert motions.
The instant motions were filed on March 13 and 14, 2014. Thus, the Court finds that they
were filed less than ninety days before the trial date of June 10, 2014. Therefore, they will be
deemed waived.
Accordingly, the Motions to Exclude [Docs. 76, 77] are DEEMED WAIVED, and they
are DENIED, on that basis. The related requests for hearing [Docs. 85, 86] are DENIED AS
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:
/s H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge

2