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.

Holland v. Keesler Federal Credit Union

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

May 22, 2017

STEVEN W. HOLLAND PLAINTIFF
v.
KEESLER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION DEFENDANT

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KEESLER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION'S MOTION [108] TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF STEVEN W. HOLLAND'S AMENDED RESPONSE [103] IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION [83] TO STRIKE THE OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY OF RANDALL A. SNYDER

          HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Keesler Federal Credit Union's Motion [108] to Strike Plaintiff Steven W. Holland's Amended Response [103] in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion [83] to Strike the Opinions and Testimony of Randall A. Snyder. This Motion is fully briefed. After consideration of the Motion, the record as a whole, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion should be granted and Plaintiff's Amended Response [103] should be stricken from the record.

         I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         A. Motions to Amend the Case Management Order

         A review of the record reflects that throughout this proceeding, numerous motions to amend the Case Management Order or extend deadlines have been filed. The original Case Management Order [9] in this case was entered on December 4, 2015, establishing the deadline for Plaintiff Steven W. Holland (“Plaintiff”) to file his expert designation as March 1, 2016, and the parties' deadline for filing Daubert and dispositive motions as May 23, 2016. The trial was originally scheduled for October 2016. Order [9] at 4-5.

         On March 31, 2016, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion [22] requesting an additional 30 days from the date Plaintiff served his expert report in which to file Defendant's expert report. Defendant's Motion stated in part as follows:

Discovery is progressing in this matter. However, although the Plaintiff filed its (sic) notice of service of designation of experts on March 1, 2016, and has provided to counsel for the Defendants a listing of prior testimony of its designated expert, the Plaintiff has failed to provide the Defendant with the following expert disclosures required by Rule 26:
(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;
(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;
(v) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.

Mot. [22] at 1-2 (emphasis in original). The Court granted Defendant's Motion in an April 1, 2016, Text Order and amended the Case Management Order to extend Defendant's deadline for filing its expert designation to May 9, 2016.

         Defendant then filed on May 6, 2016, a Joint Motion [34] with Plaintiff seeking additional time to designate experts. Defendant asserted that Plaintiff had still not served an expert report because Plaintiff's counsel reported that he had been “ill for several weeks and unable to work” or “travel.” Mot. [34] at 1-2. The Court granted the parties' Motion in a May 10, 2016, Text Order and amended the Case Management Order to extend: (1) Defendant's deadline to designate experts to June 17, 2016; (2) the ...


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.