From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Billstein v. Goodman

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jun 14, 2010
No. 08-13415 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 14, 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-13415.

June 14, 2010


ORDER


Defendants' Motion for Clarification [Docket #206] is hereby GRANTED.

This Court's order of May 18, 2010 [Docket #190] is modified and clarified as follows:

On page 1, line 4, "The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs shall use as an expert . . .," which contains a typographical omission of the word "not," is changed to "The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs shall not use as an expert. . . ."

In addition, as explained in a telephonic conference with counsel for the parties, the fact that Mr. Suppes, Mr. Barnes, or any other witness might have a consulting contract with any customer or competitor of any of the Defendants or Plaintiffs, or might work within the industry as a consultant, does not require that they be stricken as witnesses, as long as they are not otherwise employees, contractors, customers, shareholders, or sales representatives of the Plaintiffs, Defendants or their competitors.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Billstein v. Goodman

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jun 14, 2010
No. 08-13415 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 14, 2010)
Case details for

Billstein v. Goodman

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT BILLSTEIN, SR., et.al., Plaintiffs, v. MARK GOODMAN, et.al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jun 14, 2010

Citations

No. 08-13415 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 14, 2010)