Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. Radiator Specialty Company, No. 3:2007cv01339 - Document 383 (D. Or. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - regarding Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff Lexington Insurance Company's Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures and Motion in Limine 272 . Signed on 12/10/10 by Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel. (see formal opinion) (kb)

Download PDF
Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. Radiator Specialty Company Doc. 383 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 9 10 11 ARCH CHEMICALS, INC., a Virginia corporation, and LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 12 13 07-1339-HU Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER 14 15 RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, a North Carolina corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 HUBEL, Magistrate Judge: 19 Before the court is the motion of Radiator Specialty Company 20 to strike the expert disclosure of Dr. Loftus and to exclude her 21 testimony at trial as proffered by Lexington (#272). 22 In light of Lexington being added as a party to the case as a 23 plaintiff, and the denial of the motion to keep the information 24 that Lexington is a plaintiff from the jury, Lexington will be 25 allowed to 26 However, there will be limitations to Dr. Loftus' testimony. use its disclosed expert, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. 27 28 OPINION AND ORDER Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 First, Dr. Loftus will be allowed to testify in general terms 2 regarding what the science in her field of expertise shows can 3 affect a person's recollection of events over time, without any 4 reference to anyone in particular in the case. 5 examples which make it clear what witnesses she is referring to 6 that are expected to testify in the trial or whose prior statements 7 may form the bases of expert testimony at trial. She is not to use 8 She wouldn't be allowed to reveal to the jury what materials 9 or statements of potential witnesses in the trial that she had 10 reviewed with respect to her testimony in this case particularly. 11 This includes the Independent Medical Examination reports that are 12 the focus of another motion by the defendant to exclude evidence 13 from the trial (#307). 14 witness or party by name or description, and she may not give 15 opinion testimony that any specific psychological factor actually 16 influenced anyone's recollection in this case. 17 allowed to amplify her opinions offered in her preliminary report. 18 Put simply, if it is not in her report, it will not be in her trial 19 testimony. 20 She is not to mention any particular Nor would she be If there are problems with the witness statement offered as 21 part 22 testimony possibly violating the terms of this order, they can be 23 raised by specific objections filed as a part of the pretrial 24 process. 25 /// 26 /// of the pretrial 27 28 OPINION AND ORDER Page 2 documents with respect to Dr. Loftus' 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED this 10th day of December, 2010. 3 /s/ Dennis J. Hubel 4 Dennis James Hubel United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OPINION AND ORDER Page 3

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.