REPLY to Response to Motion re [92] MOTION in Limine to Limit Expert L.J. Mott's Testimony and to Exclude Witness Testimony by any Other Leprino Foods Company Representative filed by Defendant Feldmeier Equipment, Inc.. (Tallerico, Catherine)
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 114
Filed 05/08/2006
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
03-cv-2461-MSK-MEH
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY,
Plaintiff, v.
FELDMEIER EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Defendant.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT L.J. MOTT’S TESTIMONY AND TO EXCLUDE WITNESS TESTIMONY BY ANY OTHER LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE (DOCUMENT 98)
Feldmeier Equipment, Inc., by and through counsel, submits its Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Limit L.J. Mott’s Testimony and to Exclude Witness Testimony by any Other Leprino Foods Company Representative (Document 98) as follows:
REPLY
Plaintiff concedes that its expert reports were due October 1, 2004. Plaintiff further concedes that its sole expert, L.J. Mott issued only one report, which was never supplemented, on October 1, 2004. Mr. Mott's October 1, 2004 report was written in conformance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and therefore, all his opinions must have been disclosed therein. Thereafter, Defendant filed its expert reports in response to Mr. Mott’s October 1, 2004 report. Defendant’s experts limited themselves to responding to opinions set forth in the October 1, 2004 report. Defendant’s experts did not attempt to rebut opinions and theories that Mr. Mott
Page 2
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 114
Filed 05/08/2006
Page 2 of 3
propounded in the underlying State Court Action if they were not included in the October 1, 2004 report. Plaintiff argues Defendant should have anticipated that all of Mr. Mott’s various and ever-changing opinions asserted in the State Court Action were also going to be asserted in this action. Defendant could not so anticipate and did not attempt to do so. To this day, Defendant does not know specifically what other opinions Leprino wants Mr. Mott to testify to. If Mr. Mott is permitted to testify as to new opinions and theories that were not included in his October 1, 2004 report, Defendant will be greatly prejudiced as it has not had an opportunity to submit a rebuttal report to address whatever additional opinions/theories Mr. Mott may now have. Accordingly, the Court must limit Leprino to Mr. Mott’s October 1, 2004 report. WHEREFORE, Feldmeier respectfully requests the Court issue an Order limiting Leprino to expert testimony as set forth in the one and only expert report ever submitted by it in this case, i.e., Mr. Mott’s October 1, 2004 report.
Respectfully submitted this 8th of May, 2006.
FOWLER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.C.
s/ Catherine A. Tallerico Catherine A. Tallerico 1640 Grant Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: 303.298.8603 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
Page 3
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 114
Filed 05/08/2006
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of May, 2006, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATING TO PREVIOUSLY SETTLED MATTER BY PLAINTIFF (DOCUMENT 100) to be was filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
Michael G. Bohn, Esq.
mbohn@campbellbohn.com Mr. Jake Feldmeier jake@feldmeier.com
s/ Michelle Rocke
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 114
Filed 05/08/2006
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
03-cv-2461-MSK-MEH
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FELDMEIER EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Defendant.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT L.J. MOTT’S
TESTIMONY AND TO EXCLUDE WITNESS TESTIMONY
BY ANY OTHER LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY
REPRESENTATIVE (DOCUMENT 98)
Feldmeier Equipment, Inc., by and through counsel, submits its Reply in Support of
Defendants’ Motion to Limit L.J. Mott’s Testimony and to Exclude Witness Testimony by any
Other Leprino Foods Company Representative (Document 98) as follows:
REPLY
Plaintiff concedes that its expert reports were due October 1, 2004. Plaintiff further
concedes that its sole expert, L.J. Mott issued only one report, which was never supplemented,
on October 1, 2004. Mr. Mott's October 1, 2004 report was written in conformance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and therefore, all his opinions must have been disclosed therein.
Thereafter, Defendant filed its expert reports in response to Mr. Mott’s October 1, 2004
report. Defendant’s experts limited themselves to responding to opinions set forth in the October
1, 2004 report. Defendant’s experts did not attempt to rebut opinions and theories that Mr. Mott
PDF Page 3
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 114
Filed 05/08/2006
Page 2 of 3
propounded in the underlying State Court Action if they were not included in the October 1,
2004 report. Plaintiff argues Defendant should have anticipated that all of Mr. Mott’s various
and ever-changing opinions asserted in the State Court Action were also going to be asserted in
this action. Defendant could not so anticipate and did not attempt to do so. To this day,
Defendant does not know specifically what other opinions Leprino wants Mr. Mott to testify to.
If Mr. Mott is permitted to testify as to new opinions and theories that were not included
in his October 1, 2004 report, Defendant will be greatly prejudiced as it has not had an
opportunity to submit a rebuttal report to address whatever additional opinions/theories Mr. Mott
may now have. Accordingly, the Court must limit Leprino to Mr. Mott’s October 1, 2004 report.
WHEREFORE, Feldmeier respectfully requests the Court issue an Order limiting
Leprino to expert testimony as set forth in the one and only expert report ever submitted by it in
this case, i.e., Mr. Mott’s October 1, 2004 report.
Respectfully submitted this 8th of May, 2006.
FOWLER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.C.
s/ Catherine A. Tallerico
Catherine A. Tallerico
1640 Grant Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: 303.298.8603
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
PDF Page 4
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 114
Filed 05/08/2006
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of May, 2006, I caused a true and correct copy of the
foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATING TO PREVIOUSLY SETTLED MATTER BY
PLAINTIFF (DOCUMENT 100) to be was filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
Michael G. Bohn, Esq.
mbohn@campbellbohn.com
Mr. Jake Feldmeier
jake@feldmeier.com
s/ Michelle Rocke
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
