Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Karamen Ballard v. Patrick R. Donahoe

May 17, 2013


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge


The court is in receipt of the parties' joint status report. ECF No. 21. The court has determined that the matter shall be submitted upon the record and briefs on file and accordingly, the date for hearing of this matter shall be vacated. Local Rule 230. On review of the parties' status report, the court enters the following scheduling order: SERVICE OF PROCESS Service of process is undisputed and defendant has answered. JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of court and upon a showing of good cause.


Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed and are hereby found to be proper.


All discovery shall be completed by October 25, 2013. The word "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. Motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the undersigned's calendar in accordance with the Local Rules and must be heard not later than October 3, 2013.


The parties are to designate in writing, and serve upon all other parties, the names of all experts they propose to tender at trial in accordance with the following schedule: plaintiff's initial expert disclosures on or before July 19, 2013; defendant's initial disclosures on or before August 19, 2013; and rebuttal expert disclosures on or before September 18, 2013.

An expert witness not appearing on said lists will not be permitted to testify unless the party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of the witness could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the lists were exchanged; (b) the court and opposing counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was promptly proffered for deposition. Failure to provide the information required along with the expert designation may lead to preclusion of the expert's testimony or other appropriate sanctions.

For the purposes of this scheduling order, experts are defined as "percipient" and "Rule 26" experts. Both types of experts shall be listed. Percipient experts are persons who, because of their expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the case. Another term for their opinions are "historical opinions." Percipient experts are experts who, unless also designated as Rule 26 experts, are limited to testifying to their historical opinions and the reasons for them. That is, they may be asked to testify about their opinions given in the past and the whys and wherefores concerning the development of those opinions. However, they may not be asked to render a current opinion for the purposes of the litigation.

Rule 26 experts, who may be percipient experts as well, shall be specifically designated by a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of the litigation.*fn1 The Rule 26 expert may express opinions formed for the purposes of the litigation. A party designating a Rule 26 expert will be assumed to have acquired the express permission of the witness to be so listed.

The parties shall comply with the information disclosure provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) for any expert, who is in whole or in part designated as a Rule 26 expert. This information is due at the time of designation. Failure to supply the required information may result in the Rule 26 expert being stricken. All Rule 26 experts are to be fully prepared to render an informed opinion at the time of designation so that they may fully participate in any deposition taken by the opposing party. Rule 26 experts will not be permitted to testify at trial as to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, which should have been reasonably available at the time of designation. The court will closely scrutinize for discovery abuse deposition opinions which differ markedly in nature and/or in bases from those expressed in the mandatory information disclosure.


All law and motion, except as to discovery, shall be completed by January 15, 2014. The word "completed" in this context means that all law and motion matters must be heard by the above date. Counsel (and/or pro se parties) are cautioned to refer to the Local Rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the court's regularly scheduled law and motion calendar. ...

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.