Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de114> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de114 RegisterActionDate "2019-02-15" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de114 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: Several motions by Mr. 225164D are before the Court. The Court denies Mr. 225164D 112 Motion to Appoint Expert. The deadline for designation of experts set by the Scheduling Order was July 22, 2018 80 . It appears that Mr. 225164D (whether pro se or through counsel) did not designate any experts before that date, and he has not shown good cause as to why it would be appropriate to permit him to do so now, some seven months after that deadline expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Moreover, the Court notes that Mr. 225164D has identified neither an expert he seeks to have appointed nor a source of funds to compensate that expert, both of which weigh against granting his request. See Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 397-98 (10th Cir. 2016). Although the question of whether Mr. 225164D suffered any injury as a result of Ms. 885EEFC alleged indifference is a central issue remaining in this case, the Court cannot conclude that that issue is so complex as to require expert testimony; indeed, the affidavit tendered by Ms. 885EEFC "expert" (for which the foundational requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702 are not necessarily apparent), is not premised upon any apparent complex medical examination or analysis. In such circumstances, the Court is satisfied that Mr. 225164D is capable of responding to that affidavit based on his own personal experience. Accordingly, Mr. 225164D motion requesting appointment of an expert is denied.Next, Mr. 225164D 113 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants that portion of Mr. 225164D motion that requests an extension of time to file his summary judgment response, and Mr. 225164D response is now due on March 15, 2019. However, to the extent the motion can be understood to be a request by Mr. 225164D for leave to conduct additional discovery, the motion is denied. Mr. 225164D has recently made a similar request for such leave and the Magistrate Judge has denied it 110 . The Court sees little reason to revisit that determination.Finally, the Court denies Mr. 225164D 114 Motion to Stay. That motion is largely premised on Mr. 225164D belief that he should be entitled to engage in further discovery before responding to the motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated above, the Court declines to grant him leave to conduct additional discovery and thus, there is no need for a stay. By Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/15/19. Text Only Entry (msklc2, ) (Entered: 02/15/2019)" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de114 AdministrativeID "115" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de114 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de114 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de111 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de114 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de112 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de114 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-00046_de113 @default.