Castillo v. Kmart Corporation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ALTAGRACIA CASTILLO, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 2012-017 ) KMART CORPORATION, ) ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Lee J. Rohn, Esq., Trudy Fenster, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Plaintiff Carl R. Williams, Esq., Richard P. Farrelly, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the Defendant ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Expert Report of Dr. Orlando Fernandez Filed March 13, 2013” (Dkt. No. 67); Defendant’s “Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Expert Report of Dr. Orlando Fernandez and Motion to Extend Deadline to Produce Medical Evaluation Addendum” (Dkt. No. 70); and Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition and Motion (Dkt. No. 72). By her Motion, Plaintiff seeks to strike an “addendum” report by Defendant’s expert, Dr. …
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_12-cv-00017/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_12-cv-00017-1.pdf
SHA-256 d577ef5bf38cf1b7174333b8da814674bec888297b994374d4eceaf0d44a9eab
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-d577ef5bf38c
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ALTAGRACIA CASTILLO, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 2012-017 ) KMART CORPORATION, ) ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Lee J. Rohn, Esq., Trudy Fenster, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Plaintiff Carl R. Williams, Esq., Richard P. Farrelly, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the Defendant ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Expert Report of Dr. Orlando Fernandez Filed March 13, 2013” (Dkt. No. 67); Defendant’s “Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Expert Report of Dr. Orlando Fernandez and Motion to Extend Deadline to Produce Medical Evaluation Addendum” (Dkt. No. 70); and Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition and Motion (Dkt. No. 72). By her Motion, Plaintiff seeks to strike an “addendum” report by Defendant’s expert, Dr. Orlando Fernandez, dated December 21, 2012—four days after the extended expert disclosure deadline—and produced to Plaintiff on March 13, 2013, on the grounds that Defendant has failed to show “excusable neglect” for the untimely submission as required under Rule 6(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 67 at 2–3). In its Opposition and Motion, Case: 1:12-cv-00017-WAL-GWC Document #: 112 Filed: 02/14/14 Page 1 of 2 2 Defendant explains that its counsel became aware, and received a copy, of the addendum from Dr. Fernandez on the evening before it was produced to Plaintiff, because—as explained by Dr. Fernandez during his deposition—Dr. Fernandez’s office had failed to send the addendum to counsel. (Dkt. No. 70 at 1–3). Defendant maintains that, notwithstanding the untimely submission, the addendum was produced during the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert and six days prior to the deposition of Dr. Fernandez, thus affording Plaintiff the opportunity to examine both her own expert and Dr. Fernandez concerning the contents of the addendum. (Id. at 2). After “tak[ing] account of all relevant circumstances,” In re O’Brien Envtl. Energy, Inc., 188 F.3d 116, 125 (3d Cir. 1999), in the context of the “excusable neglect” factors articulated by the Supreme Court in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)—including the absence of any identified prejudice to Plaintiff or impact on the judicial proceedings, and the length and reason for the delay—the Court will accept the filing of Dr. Fernandez’s addendum report and will not preclude him from testifying regarding the contents thereof based on the date of its submission. UPON CONSIDERATION of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 67) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion to Extend Deadline to Produce Medical Evaluation Addendum” (Dkt. No. 70) is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc, to the extent set forth above. SO ORDERED. Date: February 14, 2014 ________/s/________ WILMA A. LEWIS Chief Judge Case: 1:12-cv-00017-WAL-GWC Document #: 112 Filed: 02/14/14 Page 2 of 2