Brown v. U.S., 16-cv-13003. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20180530d39
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 29, 2018
Latest Update: May 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #23), (2) REQUIRING EXPERT DISCLOSURES, AND (3) ALLOWING RE-DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERTS MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Kris Roena Brown ("Plaintiff") asserts a claim against Defendant United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1) (the "FTCA"), for injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. ( See Compl., ECF #1.) On June 30, 2017, Defe
Summary: ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #23), (2) REQUIRING EXPERT DISCLOSURES, AND (3) ALLOWING RE-DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERTS MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Kris Roena Brown ("Plaintiff") asserts a claim against Defendant United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1) (the "FTCA"), for injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. ( See Compl., ECF #1.) On June 30, 2017, Defen..
More
ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #23), (2) REQUIRING EXPERT DISCLOSURES, AND (3) ALLOWING RE-DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERTS
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff Kris Roena Brown ("Plaintiff") asserts a claim against Defendant United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (the "FTCA"), for injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. (See Compl., ECF #1.) On June 30, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (See ECF #23.) The Court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment on May 29, 2018.
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF #23) is DENIED;
2. By not later than June 12, 2018, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant complete disclosures complying with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for any expert who may offer opinion testimony at trial;1
3. Defendant may re-depose, if it so chooses, any of the witnesses for whom Plaintiff provided a disclosure pursuant to paragraph 2 above. Plaintiff shall pay the costs for the re-depositions of Dr. Wasim Rathur and Dr. Lucia Zamorano;
4. By not later than June 22, 2018, the parties shall advise the Court's case manager in a single, joint email whether the parties would like to reconvene settlement proceedings and, if so, in what form; and
5. After the Court's case manager has received the parties' email pursuant to paragraph 4 above, the Court will set a telephone status conference to discuss next steps in this matter.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff has not retained or specially employed any witness to provide expert testimony, which would require disclosure under Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Instead, Plaintiff's expert witnesses are her treating physicians.
Source: Leagle
