§Why CasetextPricing

Pate v. Michelin North America, Inc. et al

MOTION to Exclude Late Named Experts

11 Cited authorities

  1. Reese v. Herbert

    527 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 937 times
    Holding that the district court acted within its discretion in denying a motion for leave to amend because the motion was filed nearly seven weeks after the close of discovery and would have unduly prejudiced the defendants

  2. Cooper v. Southern Co.

    390 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 882 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employee's conclusory testimony based on her subjective belief could not preclude summary judgment against her

  3. Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

    366 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D. Ga. 2005)   Cited 203 times
    Holding in case with similar affidavit that plaintiff's opinion testimony was insufficient to establish value of car in defective condition because plaintiff "does not have any training or experience in car valuations, demonstrates no knowledge of or familiarity with the factors that impact car value, and failed to provide any information or analysis showing she had experience valuing cars with the kind of defects she alleges here or otherwise researched the effect of such defects on car values"

  4. Gainor v. Douglas County, Georgia

    59 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (N.D. Ga. 1998)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that since § 1367(d) applied, the "plaintiff's state law claims [were not] barred by Georgia's applicable statute of limitations, as the limitation period [was] tolled while [those] claims [were] pending before [c]ourt"

  5. Excelsior v. Windley

    329 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (N.D. Ga. 2004)   Cited 24 times
    Detailing shareholder-plaintiffs' contentions in underlying suit at issue in Four Seasons , including that "they ended up with no ownership in the Companies, while ‘the controlling other shareholder ended up with 100%’ "

  6. Morrison v. Mann

    244 F.R.D. 668 (N.D. Ga. 2007)   Cited 16 times
    Finding late disclosure of plaintiff's expert unjustified where plaintiff should have known that an expert would be necessary to "rebut any potential defense witnesses"

  7. Coyote Portable Storage, LLC v. Pods Enterprises, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1152-AT (N.D. Ga. May. 16, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1152-AT. May 16, 2011 ORDER AMY TOTENBERG, District Judge This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to bar introduction of expert testimony or, in the alternative, reopen discovery period [Doc. 78]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion to bar introduction of expert testimony is GRANTED and the motion to reopen discovery period is DENIED AS MOOT. I. Factual and Procedural Background This case involves a dispute over Franchise Agreements that Plaintiffs

  8. Kent v. Peters

    440 S.E.2d 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 6 times

    A93A1793. DECIDED JANUARY 24, 1994. Action for damages. Terrell Superior Court. Before Judge Bishop. Peter G. Williams, for appellant. Divine, Wilkin, Raulerson Fields, Richard W. Fields, for appellee. SMITH, Judge. This personal injury action arises out of an intersection collision between a car driven by defendant Peters and one driven by plaintiff Kent's husband. Kent was a passenger in her husband's car. On the trial of the case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant. Plaintiff's

  9. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,988 times   653 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  10. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 45,912 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,664 times   255 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard