Summary
The court granted plaintiffs’ motions for a retroactive extension of the deadline to produce an expert report and denied defendant’s motion to strike the expert disclosure and exclude the expert’s testimony. The court found that plaintiffs were diligent and that the 28-day delay was harmless because defendant had reviewed the report and proceeded with the expert depositions.
Holdings
- The court granted plaintiffs' motions for a retroactive extension because plaintiffs were diligent in meeting their disclosure obligations and the delay was harmless.
- The court denied defendant's motion to strike Prosser's disclosure and exclude his expert testimony because the 28-day delay was harmless and exclusion was unnecessary.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should retroactively extend the deadline for plaintiffs to produce Prosser's expert report.
- Whether the 28-day delay required striking Prosser's disclosure and excluding his expert testimony.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- Marie v. American Red Cross, 771 F.3d 344, 366 (6th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- AFS Logistics, LLC v. Cochran, No. 3:16-3139, 2017 WL 11477303, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. July 12, 2017)(followed)
- Matilla v. S. Kentucky Rural Elec. Co-op. Corp., 240 F. App'x 35, 42 (6th Cir. 2007)(distinguished)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…