Baptiste v. Rohn, Lee J.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX JESSICA BAPTISTE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 2013-0104 LEE J. ROHN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ) D/B/A LAW OFFICES OF LEE J. ROHN, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Andrew C. Simpson, Esq., Emily Shoup, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Plaintiff Lee J. Rohn, Esq., Mary Faith Carpenter, Esq., Rhea Lawrence, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendant ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion in Limine to Bar Plaintiff from Calling any Expert Witnesses,” filed on February 1, 2016 (Dkt. No. 52), wherein Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from “offering any expert testimony at trial[,] including testimony from any treating physicians.” On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Opposition in which she states that she “has not identified any expert witnesses in this case and does not plan to call any expert witnesses to testify on her behalf.” (Dkt. No. 55). …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_13-cv-00104/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_13-cv-00104-1.pdf
SHA-256 bbe44b09b7aa935652420a338be425410d318f01cfc9df7abbc8c41600bc7ad1
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-bbe44b09b7aa
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX JESSICA BAPTISTE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 2013-0104 LEE J. ROHN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ) D/B/A LAW OFFICES OF LEE J. ROHN, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Andrew C. Simpson, Esq., Emily Shoup, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Plaintiff Lee J. Rohn, Esq., Mary Faith Carpenter, Esq., Rhea Lawrence, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendant ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion in Limine to Bar Plaintiff from Calling any Expert Witnesses,” filed on February 1, 2016 (Dkt. No. 52), wherein Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from “offering any expert testimony at trial[,] including testimony from any treating physicians.” On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Opposition in which she states that she “has not identified any expert witnesses in this case and does not plan to call any expert witnesses to testify on her behalf.” (Dkt. No. 55). Plaintiff states further that she “does not intend to seek expert testimony from her treating physicians and has not designated them as ‘non-expert’ Case: 1:13-cv-00104-WAL-EAH Document #: 63 Filed: 02/26/16 Page 1 of 2 2 witnesses . . . .” (Id.).1 The Court understands these representations to mean that Plaintiff does not intend to offer any expert testimony and further that she does not intend to offer any testimony from her treating physicians—expert or “non-expert.” Notwithstanding these representations by Plaintiff, Defendant filed a Reply on February 16, 2016, arguing that “the issue with the treating physicians is not that Plaintiff does not intend to seek ‘expert testimony’ from these doctors, the issue is that Plaintiff failed to disclose these treating physicians as witnesses at all as revised Rule 26 mandates.” (Dkt. No. 59). In view of the fact that Rule 26 mandates the disclosure of only individuals that the disclosing party “may use to support its claims or defenses,” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i), and experts “it may use at trial,” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(A), the Court finds incomprehensible the issue that Defendant continues to raise in her Reply. Given that Plaintiff stated in her Opposition that she does not intend to call any expert witnesses or treating physicians at trial (see Dkt. No. 55), the Court will deny as moot Defendant’s “Motion in Limine to Bar Plaintiff from Calling any Expert Witnesses.” Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion in Limine to Bar Plaintiff from Calling any Expert Witnesses” is DENIED AS MOOT. SO ORDERED. Date: February 26, 2016 _______/s/________ WILMA A. LEWIS Chief Judge 1 Consistent with these representations, Plaintiff did not identify any expert or treating physicians as witnesses in her Rule 26 disclosure of witnesses that she intends to call at trial, which was filed on January 25, 2016. (Dkt. No. 46). Case: 1:13-cv-00104-WAL-EAH Document #: 63 Filed: 02/26/16 Page 2 of 2