Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Daubert Motion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court and Counsel Set Briefing and Hearing Targets for Daubert Challenge to Expert Sturdivant
Summary
The court and parties discussed a motion filed June 6 to exclude or limit testimony from defense expert Dr. Sturdivant; the judge asked parties to be ready for argument and proposed potential hearing dates in late August.
Defense and plaintiffs have flagged competing motions over expert testimony from a witness identified as Sturdivant. At the June 26 status conference the defense characterized the June 6 filing as partly a Daubert challenge, arguing the expertcs report was authored by plaintiffs' counsel and challenging the expert's factual basis. Plaintiffs described the defense filing as a Daubert motion and said they would respond on the usual schedule.
The court asked the parties to try to have the matter fully briefed so it could be heard at the parties' next status conference on August 11. The judge also asked the parties to consider availability for a potential Daubert hearing and suggested August 22 (Friday) and August 25 (Monday) as provisional hearing dates, asking counsel to check witness availability and to confer after the July 4 holiday weekend.
The presiding judge signaled an expectation that expert witnesses should appear in person for any Daubert hearing rather than by Zoom, and that if either side proposes rebuttal experts, those witnesses should be available as well. Counsel agreed to check availability and said they would attempt to file responsive briefs in time for the August 11 scheduling or hearing.
Why this matters: A Daubert ruling on a key expert can narrow or exclude testimony that may be critical to proving or defending elements of liability. The court's scheduling and emphasis on in-person testimony aims to make an efficient, evidence-based determination.
The court also told counsel to block out those late-August dates while they confirm schedules so the court can allocate courtroom time and resources if live hearings are required. No Daubert ruling was issued at the status conference; the hearing will be set if briefing and availability allow.
