Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Britt v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority

March 23, 2009

CARMEN BRITT AND CARMEN BRITT, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF LULA BAITY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. William M. Skretny, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), for all pretrial matters, and for hearing and disposition of all non-dispositive motions or applications. Dkt. #6.

Currently before the Court are the following motions:

(1) defendants' motions to preclude plaintiff's purported expert, Charles Patrick Ewing, J.D., Ph.D., from offering evidence due to plaintiff's failure to timely and adequately serve expert disclosure (Dkt. ##211, 213, 214*fn1, 215, 216, & 218);

(2) defendant Nelda Lawler, M.D., Teresa Chau, M.D., Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, Elaine Garbe and Jeri Giwa's motion to preclude plaintiff's purported expert witnesses, Neil Scott, M.D., D.D.S. and Richard Patnella, R.Ph, from offering evidence because their opinions do not relate to causes of action properly before the Court; to preclude plaintiff's purported expert witness, Kenneth M. Condrell, Ph.D., for failing to comply with expert disclosure rules; and to preclude plaintiff's purported expert witness, Peter Stastny, M.D., from presenting opinion evidence with respect to non-parties and causes of action not properly before the court (Dkt. ##218 & 221); and

(3) plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental reply affirmation in further opposition to defendants' motions to preclude.

Dkt. #231. For the following reasons, defendants' motions to preclude Dr. Ewing are granted; defendants' motions to preclude Dr. Scott, Mr. Patnella; Dr. Condrell; and Dr. Stastny are denied without prejudice; and plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental reply is denied.

Supplemental Reply Affirmation

Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to file a supplemental reply affirmation in further opposition to defendants' motions to preclude plaintiff's expert witnesses from offering evidence. Dkt. #231.

Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that the supplemental reply affirmation is "little more than a rehashing of plaintiff's previous arguments." Dkt. #233, ¶ 4.

As plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to respond to defendants' motions and there is no indication that defendants' reply to plaintiff's response raised new issues to be addressed, the Court finds no basis for allowing plaintiff the opportunity to file a supplemental reply. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion (Dkt. #231), for an extension of time to file a supplemental reply affirmation in further opposition to defendants' motions to preclude plaintiff's expert witnesses is denied.

Charles Patrick Ewing, J.D., Ph.D.

On October 10, 2006, this Court entered a Case Management Order setting March 2, 2007 as the deadline for plaintiff to identify any expert witnesses who might be used at trial and provide reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Dkt. #89. Plaintiff failed to do so and defendants moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, to preclude plaintiff from offering expert witness testimony. Dkt. #151.

Although the Court found no basis to excuse counsel's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) within the time set forth in the Case Management Order, it recognized that preclusion of plaintiff's experts would effectively extinguish plaintiff's claim. Dkt. #208, p.5. As a result, the Court denied defendants' motion to preclude and permitted plaintiff to provide reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) for each of the four expert witnesses he has identified, to wit, ...


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.