Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reyes v. Seaton Enterprises

May 23, 2008

RODOLFO REYES AND SANDRA REYES PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SEATON ENTERPRISES, LLC, DAVID RUSSELL SEATON, ANTHONY CRADY, AND KRISTIE MARVIN, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Curtis L. Collier Chief United States District Judge

Chief District Judge Curtis L. Collier

MEMORANDUM

Before the Court are numerous pretrial motions filed by both sides in this action. For the reasons set out below, the Court will GRANT, DENY, GRANT IN PART, DENY IN PART, and RESERVE RULING on these various motions (Court File Nos. 167, 176, 181, 193, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202).

I. DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT

Defendants filed a motion for default judgment on February 27, 2008 (Court File No. 125), which the Court has already denied (Court File No. 217). Defendants have filed two "motions to amend" this motion for entry of default (Court File Nos. 167, 176). The amendments introduce an argument that the Court should exclude some of Plaintiffs experts. This argument appeared neither in Defendants' original motion nor in Defendants' subsequently filed memorandum (Court File No. 145), and the subsequent motions do not sufficiently set out the issue for the Court to render a decision. Defendants claim Plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2).

Plaintiffs have offered no response, and the Court is hesitant to rule on an issue with no input from one side. The Defendants' amendments to the extent they are separate motions will be DENIED (Court File No. 167, 176).

II. Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine

A. Motion to Exclude Dr. Edward Workman

Plaintiffs have moved to exclude or, in the alternative, compel the testimony of Dr. Workman at a deposition (Court File No. 181). "Plaintiffs request[ed either] that the Court GRANT this motion and exclude testimony by Dr. Edward Workman at the trial of this cause, or in the alternative, compel the Defendants to provide a discovery deposition of Dr. Edward Workman." (Id.). This matter appears to be resolved by the order of the magistrate judge providing for the immediate scheduling of Dr. Workman's deposition (Court File No. 182). The motion will be DENIED as moot.

B. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Fenton C. Moran

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to exclude the expert opinion of Fenton C. Moran ("Moran") (Court File No. 193). Defendants have responded in opposition (Court File No. 219).

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,

(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. In Daubert, the Supreme Court held that courts must determine whether expert testimony meets a standard of evidentiary reliability ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.