From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hancock v. Benning

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Mar 28, 2013
NO. 3-10-0935 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 28, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 3-10-0935

03-28-2013

DAVID HANCOCK, et al. v. THOMAS R. BENNING, M.D., et al.


JUDGE CAMPBELL


ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Relief from Order Limiting Defendants to Three Expert Witnesses (Docket No. 68) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Anesthesia Medical Group, P.C. to Identify Designated Representative (Docket No. 72).

Plaintiffs have represented that they do not oppose Defendants' Motion so long as Defendants identify by name those experts Defendants intend to call by the close of business on April 1, 2013. Docket No. 73. Defendants' Motion for Relief (Docket No. 68) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants shall identify to Plaintiffs, by name, those experts they intend to call by April 3, 2013. The Court notes that Defendants have filed their list of witnesses (Docket No. 76), which may moot Plaintiffs' request.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Docket No. 72) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant Anesthesia Medical Group shall identify to Plaintiffs, by April 3, 2013, the designated representative who will attend and testify on its behalf at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________

TODD J. CAMPBELL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hancock v. Benning

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Mar 28, 2013
NO. 3-10-0935 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 28, 2013)
Case details for

Hancock v. Benning

Case Details

Full title:DAVID HANCOCK, et al. v. THOMAS R. BENNING, M.D., et al.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Mar 28, 2013

Citations

NO. 3-10-0935 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 28, 2013)