Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER JANE M. VIRDEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs' motion to compel "chemical fingerprinting" data and factual information provided to Defendants' retained experts, Ranjit Machado and Robert Powell. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs cite no legal authority and only contend, in conclusory fashion 1 , that Defendants' retained experts, Machado and Powell, received certain "chemical fingerpr
Summary: ORDER JANE M. VIRDEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs' motion to compel "chemical fingerprinting" data and factual information provided to Defendants' retained experts, Ranjit Machado and Robert Powell. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs cite no legal authority and only contend, in conclusory fashion 1 , that Defendants' retained experts, Machado and Powell, received certain "chemical fingerpri..
More
ORDER
JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs' motion to compel "chemical fingerprinting" data and factual information provided to Defendants' retained experts, Ranjit Machado and Robert Powell. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.
In support of their motion, Plaintiffs cite no legal authority and only contend, in conclusory fashion1, that Defendants' retained experts, Machado and Powell, received certain "chemical fingerprinting" facts and data.
In their opposition, Defendants cite specific deposition testimony of the retained experts, affirming that they neither received nor reviewed any facts or data concerning "chemical fingerprinting." This assertion was further specifically made by counsel for Defendants, who represents to the court that Plaintiffs' assertion that "chemical fingerprinting" data and/or analysis was revealed to the retained experts is untrue.
On this record, and absent even a reply by Plaintiffs in support of the motion, the undersigned is unpersuaded that there is any basis to compel these retained expert witnesses to produce anything—particularly that which they represent they have never been provided and did not consider in formulating their opinions.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Indeed, Plaintiffs merely refer the court generally to over 35 pages of deposition testimony, most of which appears to have nothing to do with the aforementioned facts and data.
