From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CABRERA v. BOTO COMPANY LIMITED

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Aug 6, 2007
CASE NO: 8:05-cv-2209-T-26TGW (M.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO: 8:05-cv-2209-T-26TGW.

August 6, 2007


ORDER


Upon due consideration, it is ordered and adjudged that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Jack C. Ward (Dkt. 99) is denied. Defendant should have filed its motion immediately upon receipt of Plaintiffs' amended expert witness disclosure rather than waiting until the eve of the pretrial conference. Under these circumstances, the Court considers Defendant's thirty-day delay in bringing the motion to be dilatory. Cf. Hinson v. Clinch Cty., Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 821, 826 (11th Cir. 2000) (determining that district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to compel due to her delay in bringing the motion). Furthermore, Defendant's objection to the competency of this witness to render an expert opinion is an issue more appropriately raised at trial. Finally, Plaintiffs shall make this witness available to Defendant for his deposition within 14 days of this order.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida.


Summaries of

CABRERA v. BOTO COMPANY LIMITED

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Aug 6, 2007
CASE NO: 8:05-cv-2209-T-26TGW (M.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2007)
Case details for

CABRERA v. BOTO COMPANY LIMITED

Case Details

Full title:PAUL CABRERA and STEPHANIE CABRERA, Plaintiffs, v. BOTO COMPANY LIMITED…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Aug 6, 2007

Citations

CASE NO: 8:05-cv-2209-T-26TGW (M.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2007)