Hudson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 18-cv-03284-PJH. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190617820
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF Re: Dkt. No. 32 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . The court is in receipt of the parties' joint "discovery" letter brief wherein plaintiff seeks to exclude defendants' two rebuttal expert disclosures. Having reviewed that briefing and the supporting papers, the court finds that plaintiff's position lacks merit and therefore DENIES plaintiff's request. While the court has chosen to rule on plaintiff's request now in order to permit the parties to effect
Summary: ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF Re: Dkt. No. 32 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . The court is in receipt of the parties' joint "discovery" letter brief wherein plaintiff seeks to exclude defendants' two rebuttal expert disclosures. Having reviewed that briefing and the supporting papers, the court finds that plaintiff's position lacks merit and therefore DENIES plaintiff's request. While the court has chosen to rule on plaintiff's request now in order to permit the parties to effecti..
More
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 32
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
The court is in receipt of the parties' joint "discovery" letter brief wherein plaintiff seeks to exclude defendants' two rebuttal expert disclosures. Having reviewed that briefing and the supporting papers, the court finds that plaintiff's position lacks merit and therefore DENIES plaintiff's request.
While the court has chosen to rule on plaintiff's request now in order to permit the parties to effectively prepare for trial, plaintiff's request would have been more appropriately brought as a motion in limine. The parties are warned that future evidentiary matters should be raised in motions in limine in accordance with the timeline and procedures set forth in the court's pretrial order. See Dkt. 20.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
