Anastasion v. Credit Service of Logan et al
Filing
177
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 113 Denying Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 09/16/2011. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
AMY ANASTASION,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
vs.
CREDIT SERVICE OF LOGAN, INC. dba
ALLIED COLLECTION SERVICE,
BRITTANY APARTMENTS, L.L.C., and
DOES 1-10,
Case No. 2:08-CV-180 TS
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude the
Testimony of Stan V. Smith.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendants’
Motion without prejudice.
Defendants filed the present motion on December 3, 2010, requesting that the testimony
of Plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Stan V. Smith be excluded. On December 20, Plaintiff filed
Pretrial Disclosures with the Court, which included a Proposed Witness List. Dr. Smith was not
1
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3)(B).
1
listed as a witness in these disclosures, suggesting that Plaintiff did not not intend to call him at
trial and Defendants’ motion was moot. Plaintiff then filed an Opposition to the present Motion
on December 29, arguing why she should be permitted to call Dr. Smith at trial. However, while
this Motion was still pending before the Court, Plaintiff sent the Court a Proposed Pretrial Order
on February 8, 2011, that in no way referenced Dr. Smith or his Expert Report. Due to the
omission of Dr. Smith on both Plaintiff’s Proposed Witness List and Plaintiff’s Proposed Pretrial
Order, it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to call Dr. Smith at trial.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Docket No. 113) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its later refiling once it is clear whether Plaintiff intends to call Dr.
Smith to testify at trial.
DATED September 16, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
2
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.
Why Is My Information Online?