Opinion
Case No. 03-cv-01654-MSK-OES.
September 27, 2005
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Broadmoor Hotel, Inc.'s Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness (# 124), and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motions In Limine (# 125).
With regard to the Motion to Strike, the motion is not made in accordance with the Court's Procedures for Rule 702 Motions,www.co.uscourts.gov/judges/msk 702procedures.pdf. Indeed, the Court is puzzled by the Defendant's acknowledgment, at the close of some 11 pages of argument, that "Undersigned counsel understands that this motion will not be set for hearing until the Parties' Join Motion Under Fed.R.Evid. 702 has been filed with the Court. It is anticipated that this motion, in substantially the same for as Exhibit A-10, will be filed in the near future." Thus, it is not clear what effect the Defendant intends the instant motion to have. Clearly, the Defendant was aware of the Court's established procedures for Rule 702 motions, yet chose to file a motion that directly contradicts those procedures. Compare, e.g., Procedures for Rule 702 Motions at n. 1 ("Rule 702 . . . is not a basis for . . . `striking experts.'") with Docket # 124 (captioned "Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert"). Based on its failure to comply with the Court's procedures, the Defendant's motion (# 124) is DENIED without prejudice to the proper filing of the parties' Joint Motion Under Rule 702.
With regard to the Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motions In Limine, the Court notes that the motion contains an incomplete certification required pursuant to D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 6.1(D). In any event, the motion, which states only that "[t]he parties are currently working on their witness and exhibits lists which have not yet been finalized," fails to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time. See MSK Civ. Practice Standards II.G. Accordingly, the motion (# 125) is DENIED.