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.

Farrell v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


April 26, 2006

TERESA FARRELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KING KULLEN GROCERY CO., INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lindsay, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the court is the plaintiff's motion to amend the joint pretrial order, referred to the undersigned by District Judge Seybert. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks to add the names of four doctors who treated the plaintiff for her neck injury to the witnesses list. Counsel for the plaintiff contends that the names were left out of the pretrial order because he was suffering from an illness when the parties prepared the joint pretrial order, which impeded his ability to complete the witness list. The defendant opposes the motion arguing that the plaintiff should not be permitted to add four "expert witnesses" on the eve of trial given that she has never provided any expert witness information. The defendant contends that eighteen months ago it requested that the plaintiff provide it the names of her experts, the substance of the facts and opinions on which they are expected to testify and the grounds for their opinions. The plaintiff responded that she was unable to provide expert information at that time and has not updated the response to date.

As a threshold matter, the plaintiff has not characterized the four doctors as expert witnesses rather, they are described as treating physicians. Accordingly, the court need not address the defendant's argument with respect to the plaintiff's failure to comply with expert discovery requirements. To the extent the plaintiff seeks to add the four doctors to the joint pretrial order as fact witnesses, that motion is granted. The plaintiff has indicated that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff was treated by the four doctors but has not stated what if any discovery was conducted with respect to that treatment. If the defendant requires additional discovery as a result of this ruling, it may make an application for the additional discovery by May 8, 2006.

SO ORDERED:

ARLENE R. LINDSAY United States Magistrate Judge

20060426

© 1992-2006 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.