Okland Construction Company, Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance Company, The et al
Filing
144
ORDER granting 137 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Re: Expert Designation Limitation. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/8/13.(bnbcd, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB
OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Utah corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance
company,
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,
ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance
company,
EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance company,
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a New
Jersey insurance company,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the Travelers Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order
Re: Expert Designation Limitation [Doc. # 137, filed 2/28/2013] (the “Motion”), which is
GRANTED.
The Travelers Defendants request a modification of the Scheduling Order to increase the
number of specially retained experts per separately represented party from five to six. As
grounds, the Travelers Defendants assert that their amended counterclaims introduced a new
issue into the case not contemplated at the time of the scheduling conference. Okland opposes
the Motion, arguing that the expert testimony the Travelers Defendants seek to add “is unrelated
to the claims and defenses Travelers has raised in this litigation.” Response [Doc. # 143] at ¶1.
The report of the expert at issue is not before me and, in its absence, I cannot determine
whether the proposed opinions are relevant or not. Nor is this the appropriate time for that
determination. I am asked here only to increase the number of experts allowed. The issues of
relevance and admissibility must await pretrial motions in limine or contemporaneous objections
at trial.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)
The Motion [Doc. # 137] is GRANTED; and
(2)
The Scheduling Order is modified to provide that each separately represented
party may designate no more than six specially retained expert witnesses.
Dated March 8, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
