Adams, et al v. USA, No. 4:2003cv00049 - Document 1445 (D. Idaho 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Denying 758 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Improper Rebuttal Experts filed by E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (jm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ) TIMM ADAMS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________) Case No. CV-03-0049-E-BLW MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING DUPONT S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER REBUTTAL REPORTS INTRODUCTION The Court has before it DuPont s motion to strike improper rebuttal reports. That motion seeks to exclude the testimony of, among others, plaintiffs rebuttal witnesses Dr. Gary Franc and Dr. Gale Kleinkopf. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will deny the motion. ANALYSIS DuPont seeks to exclude the rebuttal testimony of Drs. Franc and Kleinkopf on the ground that they are offering new opinions in the guise of rebuttal opinions. The Court disagrees. The rebuttal reports of both experts actually rebut opinions of the defense experts. DuPont had an opportunity to depose both rebuttal experts Memorandum Decision and Order Page 1 concerning their rebuttal reports. While DuPont complains that the half-day depositions did not provide enough time to explore the opinions, DuPont has not provided any specific prejudice it suffered. DuPont had already had a full opportunity to depose these experts prior to the rebuttal opinions, so the round of depositions concerning the rebuttal opinions was the second round of opportunity to depose them. That was sufficient. ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision filed above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that DuPont s motion to strike plaintiffs improper rebuttal experts (Docket No. 758) is DENIED. DATED: August 11, 2009 Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge Memorandum Decision and Order Page 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
