Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-CV-26
10-20-2023
TERESA L. YONCE, as Administratrix of the Estate of Brock Bland, Plaintiff, v. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., a foreign corporation, and PETE'S CYCLE COMPANY, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION [ECF NO. 145] TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT PETE SULLIVAN BE DENIED AS MOOT
Michael John Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to a Referral Order [ECF No. 148] entered by Hon. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief United States District Judge, on October 6, 2023. By this Referral Order, Judge Kleeh referred Defendants' motions [ECF No. 145] to the undersigned for a hearing and entry of a Report and Recommendation as to appropriate disposition of the motion.
The undersigned convened a Status Conference on October 11, 2023, by videoconference, at which appeared counsel for each of the respective parties. The subject motion [ECF No. 145] is a request that the Court strike one of Plaintiff's experts, Mr. Pete Sullivan. As the undersigned noted in a previous Order [ECF No. 153] resulting from that Status Conference, counsel for all of the parties spoke to efforts to schedule Mr. Sullivan for deposition. If those efforts are successful, Defendants stated that they would withdraw their motion to strike Mr. Sullivan. After the Status Conference, counsel for Defendants advised the undersigned's Law Clerk that the parties had reached a mutually-agreeable date for Mr. Sullivan's deposition. Indeed, in its reply [ECF No. 156, at 2], BRP states that the motion to strike Mr. Sullivan is withdrawn as moot.
Accordingly, based on the forgoing, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendants' motion [ECF No. 145] to strike Plaintiff's expert Pete Sullivan be DENIED as moot.
Any party shall have fourteen (14) days (filing of objections) from the date of the filing of this Report and Recommendation to file with the Clerk of the Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the presiding United States District Judge. Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page limitations, consistent with LR PL P 12.
Failure to timely file written objections to the Report and Recommendation as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Report and Recommendation to any parties who appear pro se and all counsel of record, as provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.