Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-02158_de92> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02158_de92 RegisterActionDate "2018-04-18" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02158_de92 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 Objection to CDOC's Designation of Rebuttal Expert and MOTION in Limine. The Scheduling Order requires the parties to designate affirmative experts by October 6, 2017 and rebuttal experts by November 3, 2017. Neither party designated an affirmative expert. Defendants then designated six non-retained "rebuttal experts" on November 24, 2017. They are not rebuttal experts. Moreover, the disclosures are insufficient to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C). However, it appears to the Court that some or all of these purported rebuttal experts participated directly in the diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff. Accordingly, any testimony of these individuals will be strictly limited as follows. First, they may testify only about the facts of their actual participation in the plaintiff's medical care, which necessarily would include opinions necessarily reached in order to render such care. They may not provide opinion testimony beyond what was part and parcel of their actual care, and documented in contemporaneous medical records. This preclusion would include opinions regarding plaintiff's prognosis or future needs unless the opinions are clearly documented in contemporaneous medical records. Second, these experts will not be permitted to give even that testimony unless defendants promptly prepare and serve a disclosure that is fully compliant with Rule 26(a)(2)(C). By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 4/18/18. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 04/18/2018)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02158_de92 AdministrativeID "93" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02158_de92 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02158_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-02158_de65 @default.