BOARDMAN v. HAUCK, 11-cv-01934-DME-BNB. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20120119b50
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge. This matter arises on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to File Rebuttal Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures to Defendant's Rebuttal Disclosures [Doc. # 26, filed 1/13/2012] (the "Motion"). The plaintiff claims the need to rebut the defendants' neuroradiologist and physical medicine experts because they "have challenged the diagnosis by Plaintiff's treating physicians." Motion [Doc. # 26] at 3, 5. The defendants do not oppose the Motion. IT IS ORDERED:
Summary: ORDER BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge. This matter arises on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to File Rebuttal Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures to Defendant's Rebuttal Disclosures [Doc. # 26, filed 1/13/2012] (the "Motion"). The plaintiff claims the need to rebut the defendants' neuroradiologist and physical medicine experts because they "have challenged the diagnosis by Plaintiff's treating physicians." Motion [Doc. # 26] at 3, 5. The defendants do not oppose the Motion. IT IS ORDERED: ..
More
ORDER
BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.
This matter arises on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to File Rebuttal Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures to Defendant's Rebuttal Disclosures [Doc. # 26, filed 1/13/2012] (the "Motion"). The plaintiff claims the need to rebut the defendants' neuroradiologist and physical medicine experts because they "have challenged the diagnosis by Plaintiff's treating physicians." Motion [Doc. # 26] at ¶¶ 3, 5. The defendants do not oppose the Motion.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Motion [Doc. # 26] is GRANTED; and
(2) The plaintiff shall designate experts in rebuttal to the opinions of defendants' neuroradiologist and physical medicine experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before January 30, 2012.
Source: Leagle
