From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oskel v. Pardee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jan 29, 2013
2:11-cv-154-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2013)

Opinion

2:11-cv-154-GMN-NJK

01-29-2013

EDWARD OSKEL, et al., Plaintiff, v. RANDY JAMES PARDEE, et al., Defendant.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Strike New Prime's Designated Expert Witness Report (#97). The Court has considered the Plaintiff's Motion (#97), the Defendants' Response (#99), and the Plaintiff's Reply (#101).

DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff asserts that New Prime's Expert Witness Dr. Glenn Lipson's January 16, 2013, Report should be stricken for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B) and Daubert. Concerning Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B), the Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Lipson failed to identify all the facts and data he relied upon in forming his opinion. This is incorrect. The Court has reviewed Dr. Lipson's report and it clearly states which records he reviewed. As for the Daubert argument, the Court finds that a Daubert dispute is more appropriately reserved for a motion in limine and other pre-trial matters, not an emergency discovery dispute. Accordingly, the Emergency Motion to Strike is denied. The deposition of Dr. Glenn Lipson shall proceed as scheduled.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Strike New Prime's Designated Expert Witness; Report (#97) is DENIED.

_______________

NANCY J. KOPPE

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Oskel v. Pardee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jan 29, 2013
2:11-cv-154-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2013)
Case details for

Oskel v. Pardee

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD OSKEL, et al., Plaintiff, v. RANDY JAMES PARDEE, et al., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Jan 29, 2013

Citations

2:11-cv-154-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2013)