Streeter v. Taser International, Inc. et al, No. 3:2010cv01466 - Document 48 (D. Or. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Denying Motion to Strike 37 ; Granting Motion to Supplement 45 ; Granting Taser's Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of Prosecution as to plaintiff's claim against it 25 ; and Granting Clackamas County's Motion 33 as to plaintiff's federal claims and denied as to supplemental state law claims. The court will retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claims. Signed on 2/8/12 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PAUL EVAN STREETER, Plaintiff, v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; ET AL., Defendants. William J. Hedges LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. HEDGES 2647 S.E. Lake Road Milwaukie, OR 97222 Attorney for Plaintiff Steven A. Kraemer Leslie A. Edenhofer HART WAGNER, LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, 20th Floor POliland, OR 97205 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.3: lO-cv-O 1466-JO OPINION AND ORDER Holly L. Gibeaut Isaiah Fields Michael A. Brave T ASER Intemational, Inc. 17800 N. 85th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Alexander Gordon Stephen L. Madkour CLACKAMAS COUNTY COUNSEL 2051 KaenRoad Oregon City, OR 97045 Attomeys for Defendants JONES, Judge: This action is before the COUlt on defendant Taser Intemational, Inc.'s ("Taser") motion to dismiss and motion to strike (## 25,37), and defendant Clackamas County's motion for summalY judgment. 1. Taser's Motions In earlier proceedings in this case, Taser moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to prosecute, based, in essence, on plaintiffs failure to respond to discovelY requests or to palticipate in discovery on a timely basis. I ordered plaintiff to appear for deposition and, more significantly, to provide Taser with expelt disclosures, and defened lUling on the motion to dismiss pending those events. Since then, plaintiff has been deposed and has produced the expert disclosures. Taser has now moved to strike plaintiffs causation expert, Richard Berkey, M.D. I deny the motion to strike at this juncture, and will consider the validity and merits of Dr. Berkey's opinions as they pertain to plaintiffs state law claims against Clackamas County in future proceedings. Having 2 - OPINION AND ORDER reviewed Dr. Berkey's written opinion as well as his supplemental opinion' carefully, however, I find that they are inadequate to support plaintiffs product liability claim against Taser. Consequently, I grant Taser's motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim against it because there is no evidence that the taser used on plaintiff was defective. 2. . Clackamas County's Motion Clackamas County moves for summaty judgment on plaintiff s six claims against it, four of which are federal claims and two of which are state law claims. 2 Plaintiff has conceded that his federal claims should be dismissed. See Plaintiffs Response to Defendant Clackamas County's Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 1. With respect to plaintitrs state law claims, while the court agrees with plaintiffs characterization that the "labeling of [his] claims might not be artful," Plaintiffs Response, p. 17, I also agree that disputed issues of material fact prevent entty of summary judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff s state law claims. In summaty, plaintiffs motion (# 45) to file supplemental expert report is granted. Taser's motion (# 25) to dismiss is granted as to plaintiffs claim against it. Taser's motion (# 37) to strike is denied. Clackamas County's motion (# 33) is granted as to plaintiffs federal 1 Plaintiffs motion (# 45) to file supplemental expelt report is granted. Claim 5 alleges violation of two federal statutes and one Oregon statute. To the extent the claim is based on federal law, that portion of the claim also is dismissed. 2 3 - OPINION AND ORDER claims and denied as to his supplemental state law claims. This couti will retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 8th day ofPebl'Ualy, 2012. 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.