Harris v. O'Hare et al
| Glen Harris |
| Johnmichael O'Hare, Anthony Pia and City of Hartford |
| 3:2008cv01644 |
| October 28, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Robert N. Chatigny |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
129
ORDER denying as moot 115 Motion for Judgment; denying 117 Motion for Judgment NOV; denying 117 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying 117 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 9/27/12. (Goldsticker, M)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER: The defendants' motions to preclude (doc. 72 74 ) are denied. Applying the factors set forth in Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Scientific Communications, 118 F.3d 955, 961 (2d Cir. 1997), the first factor - the plaintiffs' explan ation - weighs in favor of preclusion. However, the remaining factors - the importance of the testimony, the prejudice suffered by the opposing party as a result of having to prepare to meet the new testimony and the possibility of a continuance - al l weigh against preclusion. The proposed testimony, especially that of Dr. Eiswerth, is not new to the defendants (having been disclosed on 4/15/09) and is critical to the plaintiffs' case. No trial date has been set and any prejudice to the d efendants can be cured through an adjustment to the scheduling order to permit them to depose the experts and possibly retain a rebuttal expert. Having considered the foregoing factors, and mindful that "[e]ven in the face of missed deadlines, excluding expert testimony can frustrate the Federal Rules' overarching objective of doing substantial justice to litigants," Sealed Plaintiff No. 1 v. Sealed Defendant No. 1, 221 F.R.D. 367, 369 (N.D.N.Y. 2004), the court finds that the "drastic remedy" of preclusion is not warranted in this case. Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587, 590 (2d Cir. 1988). See attached amended scheduling order. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 8/19/10. (Constantine, A.)
|
|
Filing
69
Settlement Conference Order and calendar: A settlement conference is scheduled with Judge Martinez on 5/27/10 at 1:00 p.m. See attached order for instructions. (Constantine, A.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
