Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Ordoyne v. Octopus Towing, L.L.C.

Area of Law:

Torts. The case arose out of an alleged maritime personal injury to plaintiff.

Grounds:

1.) Plaintiff moved to exclude testimony of a marine liability expert and an ergonomics expert, arguing that it would overlap and be unduly cumulative.
2.) Defendant moved to exclude exert testimony because: (a) plaintiff did not timely provide a report; and (b) expert testimony would not assist the trier of fact.

Outcome:

1.) Plaintiff’s motion was denied without prejudice.
2.) Defendant’s motion was denied without prejudice.

Analysis:

1.) Plaintiff’s motion:

The court did not have the benefit of either expert’s written report and was not persuaded that the anticipated expert testimony would be needlessly cumulative. The challenged expert testimony was not in the same field. The court stated it would be in a better position to address any renewed objections to cumulative testimony at trial.

2.) Defendant’s motion:

(a) the Court declined to exclude expert testimony on the basis of delay in providing the expert report, because the deadline had been extended.

(b) The court did not know what the expert’s testimony would be, and could not categorically determine that the testimony would not assist the trier of fact. The motion was denied without prejudice to defendant’s right to renew a more specific objection at trial.