County of Maricopa v. Office Depot Inc.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
October 9, 2019

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (19,433 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
2759 Commercial Printing, NEC
323111 Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books)
expert testimony, discovery
daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, discovery, rule 702, reliability, Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii), Rule 26(b)(3)(A), Rule 26(b)(4), expert draft report, expert qualifications, relevance
County of Maricopa v. Office Depot Inc.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175695
US
Federal Court
Federal
United States District Court
Kent Ratliff, Bruce Strombom (plaintiff); Patrick D. Krivoshia (defendant)
Lanza

Summary

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.
County of Maricopa v. Office Depot Inc.
PDF, Size: 475 KB

See Also

Expert Report Containing Notes Qualifies as Draft Not Subject to Discovery

Court Case Digests
October 9, 2019

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.