Opinion
23-cv-05141-VKD
12-20-2023
WILFRIDO SANDOVAL DELGADO, Petitioner, v. VERANIA DIAZ MARQUEZ, Respondent.
Re: Dkt. No. 22
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S EX PARTE MOTION IN LIMINE WITHOUT PREJUDUCE
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, United States Magistrate Judge
On December 20, 2023, petitioner Wilfrido Sandoval Delgado filed an “Ex Parte Motion in Limine” to exclude the testimony of an expert witness proffered by respondent Verania Diaz Marquez. Dkt. No. 22. The Court denies the ex parte motion without prejudice. If Mr. Sandoval objects to the proposed testimony of Ms. Diaz's expert, he may raise those objections in accordance with the abbreviated pretrial preparation procedures outlined in the Court's case management order. See Dkt. No. 20-1 at 4-5 (objections to witnesses).
If the parties feel that they are unable to obtain necessary discovery prior to the December 29, 2023 deadline, the Court encourages them to discuss whether a modification to the schedule should be made and to promptly advise the Court of their proposals. However, the Court reminds the parties that they should only seek discovery that is truly necessary to the presentation of their respective positions, given that the Hague Convention requires that these proceedings be conducted in an “expeditious” manner. See Norinder v. Fuentes, 657 F.3d 526, 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he adjudication of a petition for return of a child is much like a district court's exercise of equitable power in the context of a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. In both circumstances, discovery often must proceed quickly, the district court must apprise itself of the relevant facts, and a decision must be rendered on an expedited basis.”).
For example, if Ms. Diaz's proposed expert will not rely on any examination or interview of respondent or her minor child, the Court questions whether Mr. Sandoval's rebuttal expert requires any such examination or interview. See Dkt. No. 22 at 5 n.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.