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.

FC Meyer Packaging, LLC v. Converting Alternatives International, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division

March 21, 2017

FC MEYER PACKAGING, LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Company PLAINTIFF
v.
CONVERTING ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company DEFENDANT

          ORDER

          Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion [56] to Strike the Notice of Service of Designation of Experts filed by Plaintiff FC Meyer Packaging, LLC. The Court having carefully considered the motion, the submissions of the parties, and the applicable law, finds that the Motion [56] should be DENIED, but that both parties should supplement their expert designations.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, a Connecticut corporation, owns a carton printing and packaging plant in Quitman, Mississippi. Defendant, a Michigan corporation, installs and services printer and cutter equipment. Plaintiff claims that it hired Defendant to inspect an outdated printer/cutter machine in Minnesota to determine whether it could be refurbished and modified for Plaintiff's use at its Mississippi plant. Relying on Defendant's advice, Plaintiff purchased the machine and hired Defendant to modify and install it. Defendant was purportedly unable to get the machine running at the rate specified in Plaintiff's initial inspection request.

         Plaintiff claims to have paid Defendant approximately $600, 000 throughout the course of this transaction. Additionally, it believes that Defendant placed an electronic device on the machine which renders it inoperable. Therefore, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit asserting the following claims: breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of approximately $750, 000 and an injunction barring Defendant from interfering with the operation of the machine.

         Analysis

         In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the Defendant's expert designation as it did not include “any written expert report which is required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26” and that “Defendant only list[ed] [] designated individuals as experts, and [did] not provide meaningful information whatsoever as to which of the designated persons will opine on which subject matter or set of facts.” See Motion [56] at 2. As alternative relief, in its rebuttal, Plaintiff requests that Defendant be required to supplement with more information. See [71] at 3. In response Defendant argues that the experts Plaintiff wishes to strike are 26(a)(2)(C) witnesses, and are not the type of experts that require a written expert report, just a disclosure.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) (emphasis added) provides:

Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.
(B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report--prepared and signed by the witness--if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. . . .
(C) Witnesses Who Do Not Provide a Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, if the witness is not required to provide a written report, this disclosure must state:
(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence ...

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.