NGUYEN V. IBP, INC.
162 F.R.D. 675 (1995)
NATURE OF THE CASE: IBP (D) filed a motion in limine to exclude expert testimony because
P had failed to serve a proper disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
FACTS: D moved in Limine to exclude testimony of P's Proffered Expert Witness. D claims
that P has failed to serve a proper disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). A medical
report signed by the expert witness and setting forth a summary of his physical examination
and medical opinions was provided by Dr. Shechter on or about October 24, 1994. P also
supplied an unsigned curriculum vitae and a list of patients about whom Dr. Shechter had
given deposition testimony. The client list contact information was incomplete and failed to
identify with particularity the cases in which Schechter testified. In discovery, P
disclosed that Schechter was being paid $750 for his work and testimony. D argues that P
has failed to make the appropriate disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) related to
retained expert witnesses. P claims he has in fact fully complied with all disclosures
pertaining to his expert witness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment