Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Hunt v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
United States District Court, D. Colorado
November 9, 2015
LARRY SCOTT HUNT, Plaintiff,
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
TRIAL PREPARATION CONFERENCE ORDER
Robert E. Blackburn United States District Judge
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e), D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.3, and D.C.COLO.LCivR 43.1, the court enters this Trial Preparation Conference Order.
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That to resolve pretrial issues implicating Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703, or 704, the following procedural protocol shall be used; provided, further, that unless otherwise ordered, failure to raise an issue concerning a putative expert witness in the time and manner required in this order shall constitute a waiver of the issue:
a. That expert reports shall conform in substance to the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B) and shall contain and include the following:
1. a complete statement of each expert opinion to be expressed and the bases and reasons therefor;
2. the facts, data, and other information considered by the witness in forming each expert opinion;
3. any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for each expert opinion;
4. the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years, stated in a curriculum vitae (“c.v.”);
5. the compensation to be paid the expert for the study and testimony; and
6. a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years;
b. That all motions raising issues under Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703, or 704 as codified and construed shall be filed by June 22, 2016, and marshaled in the time and manner prescribed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d);
c. That for each putative expert witness with respect to whom the movant objects for any reason, the movant shall provide the following:
1. whether the movant contends that the testimony of the expert is unnecessary or irrelevant; and if so, why;
2. whether the movant objects to the qualifications of the witness; and if so, why (stated in detail); and
3. whether the movant objects to any opinion to be offered by the expert; and if so:
a. which opinion; and
b. the specific basis and authority for any objection stated and presented in terms of Fed.R.Evid. 401, 702(a), (b), (c), or (d), 703, or 704, i.e., whether the objection impugns the relevancy of the opinion, the qualifications of the expert, the sufficiency of the facts and data used in support of the opinion, the principles and methods on which the expert relied in support of the opinion, how the expert has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case relevant to the opinion, or the facts or data used in forming an opinion on the subject; and
d. That for each putative expert witness whose necessity, qualifications, or opinions are opposed by the movant, the party offering the expert shall provide in response to the motion the following:
1. a c.v. for the expert;
2. a statement of each opinion to be offered by the expert that is opposed by the movant; and
3. the relevance and bases for each allegedly objectionable statement to be offered by ...
Buy This Entire Record For