Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Tommie Ewing v. Patrick R. Donahoe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 6, 2011

TOMMIE EWING, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

On November 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for designation of expert witnesses. Plaintiff asserts that he has seven "expert witnesses" who were present at and aware of the January 22, 2009 telephonic settlement conference at issue in this case. Plaintiff seeks to have these witnesses made available at all future proceedings in this court.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 706, a district court may "on its own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed." Fed. R. Evid. 706(a). The decision of whether to appoint an expert witness under Rule 706 is discretionary. The Rule only allows a court to appoint a neutral expert. See In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, 295 F.3d 651, 665 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, it is evident that plaintiff is seeking appointment of expert witnesses for his own benefit, which is not permitted under either Rule 706 or 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Gorton v. Todd, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1177 n.6 (E.D. Cal. 2011). Accordingly, this request will be denied.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for designation of expert witnesses is denied.

20111206

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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