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.

Horn v. Hornbeak

March 16, 2010

DONDI VAN HORN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TINA HORNBEAK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT (Document 239)

Plaintiff Dondi Van Horn ("Plaintiff") filed the instant motion to strike the expert report of Defendant Tina Dhillon, M.D., on February 10, 2010. The motion was heard on March 12, 2010, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Jesse Goodman and E. Daniel Robinson appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Richard Salinas appeared on behalf of Defendant Tina Dhillon, M.D. ("Dr. Dhillon"). Diana Esquivel appeared on behalf of Defendants Tina Hornbeak, James E. Tilton, Robin Dezember, Pal Virk, M.D. and James Heinrich, M.D. Gary Hunt appeared on behalf of Defendant Madera Community Hospital.

BACKGROUND

The parties and the Court are familiar with the facts underlying this action. In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to strike the declaration of John S. Wachtel, Dr. Dhillon's sole expert, and exclude his testimony at trial. Dr. Dhillon filed her opposition on February 23, 2010, and Plaintiff filed her reply on March 5, 2010.

Pursuant to the September 10, 2009, Scheduling Conference Order, expert reports were due on December 11, 2009, rebuttal expert reports were due on January 8, 2010, and expert discovery closed on January 29, 2010. Dr. Dhillon disclosed the Dr. Wachtel's expert report on December 10, 2009.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(2)(B) requires that an expert report contain:

(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;

(ii) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming them;

(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;

(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;

(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and

(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case. Rule 37(c)(1) provides that a party who fails to provide information required by Rule 26 "is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or ...


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.