De Blanc v. Aloha Airport Express, 2:18-cv-151. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190129b84
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2019
Summary: Proposed Order re Aloha Airport Express, LLC's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's 3 rd Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure [ECF No. 26] CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . On December 21, 2018 Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff's 3 rd Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure as it pertained to Dr. Patel. 1 Plaintiff's response 2 conceded all of Aloha's points, save one. Plaintiff does not 1) object to excluding Dr. Patel's July 24, 2018 and August 23, 2018 medical records; 2) object to barring Dr. Patel from giving
Summary: Proposed Order re Aloha Airport Express, LLC's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's 3 rd Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure [ECF No. 26] CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . On December 21, 2018 Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff's 3 rd Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure as it pertained to Dr. Patel. 1 Plaintiff's response 2 conceded all of Aloha's points, save one. Plaintiff does not 1) object to excluding Dr. Patel's July 24, 2018 and August 23, 2018 medical records; 2) object to barring Dr. Patel from giving ..
More
Proposed Order re Aloha Airport Express, LLC's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's 3rd Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure [ECF No. 26]
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On December 21, 2018 Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff's 3rd Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure as it pertained to Dr. Patel.1 Plaintiff's response2 conceded all of Aloha's points, save one. Plaintiff does not 1) object to excluding Dr. Patel's July 24, 2018 and August 23, 2018 medical records; 2) object to barring Dr. Patel from giving opinion testimony as a non-retained expert; or 3) argue her designation of Dr. Patel as a non-retained expert was appropriate. Plaintiff instead only argued that the October 31, 2018 medical record should be admissible as evidence of ongoing medical treatment. Defendant's reply noted it could agree to that if that is only purpose for the record, and Dr. Patel is not giving opinion testimony.3
Based upon this, Defendant's motion is denied in part to the extent it sought to strike the October 31, 2018 medical record. Defendant's motion is otherwise granted as described in this order.
It is so ordered.
FootNotes
1. ECF No. 26.
2. ECF No. 30.
3. ECF No. 33.
Source: Leagle
