Michigan Spine and Brain Surgeons, P.L.L.C v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 16-cv-12596. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20191112c42
Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT TESTIMONY (ECF NO. 56); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT CAUSATION TESTIMONY (ECF NO. 57); AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF NO. 58) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . The Court held a Final Pretrial Conference in this action on November 7, 2019. At that conference, the Court ruled on several pending pretrial motions. For the reasons explained on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference, IT IS HER
Summary: ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT TESTIMONY (ECF NO. 56); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT CAUSATION TESTIMONY (ECF NO. 57); AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF NO. 58) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . The Court held a Final Pretrial Conference in this action on November 7, 2019. At that conference, the Court ruled on several pending pretrial motions. For the reasons explained on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference, IT IS HERE..
More
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT TESTIMONY (ECF NO. 56); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT CAUSATION TESTIMONY (ECF NO. 57); AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF NO. 58)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
The Court held a Final Pretrial Conference in this action on November 7, 2019. At that conference, the Court ruled on several pending pretrial motions. For the reasons explained on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
• Plaintiff's motion to strike expert testimony (ECF No. 56) is DENIED;
• Defendant's motion to strike expert causation testimony (ECF No. 57) is GRANTED1; and
• Defendant's motion in limine to preclude any reference to privileged and/or protected materials (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED.
FootNotes
1. As described on the record, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's expert testimony in part because Plaintiff could have raised her concern about Defendant's expert disclosures much earlier and could have filed the motion to exclude the experts in accordance with the Court's scheduling order. The same is not true with Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's expert causation testimony. In that motion, Defendant sought to strike portions of testimony from Plaintiffs' two treating physicians in which the physicians offered their opinion on the cause of Plaintiff's injuries. As the Court explained, Plaintiff never designated her treating physicians as experts, and Defendant therefore had no reason to expect that the doctors would offer expert opinion testimony in this action. It was not until the eve of trial, when the parties convened to take the video trial testimony of the physicians, that Defendant learned for the first time that the doctors would be offering opinion testimony on the cause of Plaintiff's injuries. Thus, Defendant could not have filed its motion to strike the expert causation testimony any earlier than it did. Moreover, by failing to timely designate her treating physicians as experts as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff deprived Defendant of the opportunity to conduct discovery into the bases of the opinions and to prepare to counter those opinions when offered as part of the physicians' trial testimony.
Source: Leagle
