McGowan v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, 7:14-CV-182-BR. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20190312b15
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER W. EARL BRITT , District Judge . Pending before the court are a number of motions. The court's rulings follow. (1) Defendant's motion in limine to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Dr. Thomas Hubbard (DE # 360); defendant's motion in limine to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Jeffery Thomberlin, Ph.D. (DE # 364); and plaintiffs' omnibus motion in limine to exclude or limit defense experts' opinions at trial (DE # 406): Pursuant to the text order entered 30 January 2019
Summary: ORDER W. EARL BRITT , District Judge . Pending before the court are a number of motions. The court's rulings follow. (1) Defendant's motion in limine to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Dr. Thomas Hubbard (DE # 360); defendant's motion in limine to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Jeffery Thomberlin, Ph.D. (DE # 364); and plaintiffs' omnibus motion in limine to exclude or limit defense experts' opinions at trial (DE # 406): Pursuant to the text order entered 30 January 2019,..
More
ORDER
W. EARL BRITT, District Judge.
Pending before the court are a number of motions. The court's rulings follow.
(1) Defendant's motion in limine to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Dr. Thomas Hubbard (DE # 360); defendant's motion in limine to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Jeffery Thomberlin, Ph.D. (DE # 364); and plaintiffs' omnibus motion in limine to exclude or limit defense experts' opinions at trial (DE # 406): Pursuant to the text order entered 30 January 2019, the parties did not notify the court of their intent to call as a witness any of the persons identified in these motions in limine, and therefore, the court did not dispose of the motions during trial. The motions are DENIED as moot.
(2) Defendant's motion requesting use of special interrogatories and verdict form (DE # 562): At trial, the court declined to use defendant's proposed verdict form, to which this motion relates. Therefore, the motion is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
