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.

Aluru v. Anesthesia Consultants, P.C.

United States District Court, District of Colorado

March 9, 2015

DEEPIKA ALURU, M.D., Plaintiff,
v.
ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation, and PAUL A. GUTOWSKI, D.O., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Nina Y. Wang United States Magistrate Judge.

Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike William H. Kaepfner[1] [sic] as an Expert and Striking His “Expert Report” (“Motion to Strike”) [#49] filed by Plaintiff Deepika Aluru, M.D. (“Plaintiff” or “Dr. Aluru”) on December 24, 2014, which was referred to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order of Reference to enter “such orders as appropriate to enforce the Scheduling Order, and resolve discovery matters … [and to] Hear and determine referred matters in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B)” dated October 31, 2013 [#6] and Memorandum dated October 16, 2014 [#44]. The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [#49] and Defendants’ Response to the Motion to Strike [#52], and Plaintiff did not seek leave to file a Reply. The court has determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the disposition of this matter. Therefore, having considered the papers and the applicable case law, the court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Deepika Aluru, M.D. initiated this action on October 28, 2013, asserting eighteen counts under federal and state law for discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and heritage; religion and creed; gender; age; retaliation; breach of contract; intentional interference with contractual relations; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and wrongful discharge. [#1]. On February 18, 2014, the court entered a Scheduling Order [#19], with the following language governing expert disclosures:

The parties shall designate all experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) on … The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) on or before September 15, 2014.

[Id.] Chief Judge Krieger subsequently entered her Trial Preparation Order, which provides in pertinent part:

The deadline in the Scheduling Order for the filing of dispositive motions shall also be the deadline for parties to file motions challenging the foundational requirements of opinion testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 702. If the dispositive motion deadline is changed, the Rule 702 motion deadline automatically changes to match it.

[#20.]

The Scheduling Order was further clarified by Minute Order dated May 1, 2014 [#25], setting deadlines for the designation of experts on August 15, 2014 and for rebuttal experts on September 15, 2014, respectively [id.]. Discovery was set to close on October 15, 2015, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions was set for November 15, 2015. [#19].

On June 13, 2014, Dr. Aluru filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Certain Pretrial Deadlines, including extending the deadlines for exchanging expert reports, for discovery to close, and for the submission of dispositive motions. [#29]. The court granted the motion, ordering:

The parties shall designate all experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) on or before September 15, 2014;
The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) on or before October 15, 2015;
Discovery Cut-Off: November 14, 2014;
Dispositive Motion Deadline: ...

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.