ORNER v. NATIONAL BEEF PACKAGING, COMPANY, LLC, 4:13-cv-0837. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20141210d64
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge. The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the thorough June 17, 2014 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (ECF No. 55). The Defendant filed an Objection (ECF No. 56) and the Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 57). The Court reviewed the Defendant's objections under the de novo standard. Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Blewitt's recommendation, the Court will not rehash the reasoning of th
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge. The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the thorough June 17, 2014 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (ECF No. 55). The Defendant filed an Objection (ECF No. 56) and the Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 57). The Court reviewed the Defendant's objections under the de novo standard. Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Blewitt's recommendation, the Court will not rehash the reasoning of the..
More
ORDER
MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.
The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the thorough June 17, 2014 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (ECF No. 55). The Defendant filed an Objection (ECF No. 56) and the Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 57). The Court reviewed the Defendant's objections under the de novo standard.
Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Blewitt's recommendation, the Court will not rehash the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety. The Defendant's objections to the reliability of the expert reports are, in this instance, issues more appropriately explored on cross examination than in this motion to strike the testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Magistrate Judge Blewitt's report and recommendation is ADOPTED (ECF No. 55).
2. The Defendant's Motion to Strike Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part (ECF No. 44). To the extent that Plaintiff's expert Rappucci's Report offers opinions on legal issues, they are excluded. The remainder of Rappucci's Report and the report of Plaintiff's expert Dr. Glass are not excluded.
3. The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for resolution of the pending motion and other relevant proceedings.
Source: Leagle
