Free Order on Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

T .- T. .-. ,. · ._ -- _, .T N T T. __s,·,.ir.,_T.{ .».--..--up 3,,. `_T:___i. _. _.__..,_,_._,__.-._ · ;r__T,_, ,_ T.,,,. ,:. .,.:_`T ,.,__-_ -. ‘ ._ T , - ._ _, ._.~ I
T
T TSB
T UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ZT TT`]
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT T ‘ ·‘
WILLIAM G. einer, T CIVIL CTIOIQH ‘ *3
Piemtim 2 N . so cvov A TY T.'‘‘ TTF
T Ccunterclaim Defendant, ; O 11 T
T ""g“““` T EEE? TBTLTTSTSTSN FOR T
T MUTUAL CASUALTY EXPE T DISCLOSURE
T Defendant! T
T Counterclaim Plaintiff. : MAY 2, 2003 T
T T l
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the acc mpanying Memorandum
of Law in Support of its Motion for Leave to Amend E pert Disclosure and the
“ Declaration of S. Penny Windle submitted in support the eof, Lumbmerns Mutual
. , I
Casualty Company, by its undersigned counsel, hereby oves for leave to amend
its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) disclosures to identify two witTnesses who have already T
lwnnn Hannan:] in {-l»•{¤ nad-{nv. .1.. +1-..-.4. ,..-..1. ---:4.- ---- . --. -,.. , T , . .· , ..... - T
. March 31, 2004. Clark v. Lumbermens Mutual Casual Co. , 3 : OOCVO'711 (RNC} T
T Re; Defendant ' s Motion for Leave to Amend Expert isclosure [Doc. 133 ]
T Denied without prejudice . The parties' papers are insufficient to permit a T
determination of the reliability of the methodolog .used by Nelson. T
Moreover, it appears that Stone may be able to tes ify as a lay witness . T
Both matters can; be;;1`t>ettTe~r addressed at the final retrial conference .
So ordered. _ T -- _ M .
...` T -. . . .
Ro ert N. Chatigny, . .D.J. T
------- -
__ pr I I TT T `
pr __ TT `