CUNNINGHAM CHARTER CORP. v. LEARJET, INC., 07-233-DRH. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20120713787
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Before the Court is plaintiff Cunningham Charter Corporation's motion to strike the declaration of Charles Kitchens (Doc. 221). Plaintiff argues that because Kitchens was untimely disclosed in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and 37(c), the Court should strike his declaration. The Court finds, however, that Kitchens' disclosure was not untimely as it is clear from Kitchens' deposition testimony that defendant Learjet, Inc. put pl
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Before the Court is plaintiff Cunningham Charter Corporation's motion to strike the declaration of Charles Kitchens (Doc. 221). Plaintiff argues that because Kitchens was untimely disclosed in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and 37(c), the Court should strike his declaration. The Court finds, however, that Kitchens' disclosure was not untimely as it is clear from Kitchens' deposition testimony that defendant Learjet, Inc. put pla..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is plaintiff Cunningham Charter Corporation's motion to strike the declaration of Charles Kitchens (Doc. 221). Plaintiff argues that because Kitchens was untimely disclosed in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and 37(c), the Court should strike his declaration. The Court finds, however, that Kitchens' disclosure was not untimely as it is clear from Kitchens' deposition testimony that defendant Learjet, Inc. put plaintiff on notice of Kitchens as soon as it was first able to contact him. Furthermore, given what Kitchens knows, it is clear why plaintiff did not disclose him. The only question is whether it is the proper subject of a sanction or merely the proper subject of cross-examination and impeachment. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion strike (Doc. 221) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
