United States District Court, District of Minnesota
D.C. Riggot, Inc., Plaintiff,
Estate of Robert W. Kearns, Defendant.
Joshua N. Brekken, Esq., Christopher D. Johnson, Esq., and David K. Snyder, Esq., Johnson & Turner, counsel for Plaintiff.
Matthew S. Greenstein, Esq., Marvin A. Liszt, Esq., and Jack E. Pierce, Esq., Bernick Lifson, PA, counsel for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DONOVAN W. FRANK United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Estate of Robert W. Kearns’s Motion for an Opportunity to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. No. 35.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendant’s motion.
On April 2, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant in Washington County District Court, Minnesota. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. 1.) On April 11, 2014, Defendant removed the Washington County action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 18, 2014, Defendant filed its answer and counterclaim to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 3.)
On June 9, 2014, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois held the Pretrial Conference in this case. (Doc. No. 8.) One June 19, 2014, the Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order. (Doc. No. 9.) In the Pretrial Scheduling Order, the Court stated that “[t]he period during which the parties must conduct all discovery (whether fact or expert) shall terminate on November 30, 2014, ” and “[e]ach party’s disclosure . . . shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the expert witness.” (Id. at 1-4.)
On June 30, 2014, Defendant filed its initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1). (Doc. No. 31, Ex. A.) On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff served interrogatories on Defendant. (Doc. No. 31, Ex. B.) Defendant filed its response and supplemental response to those interrogatories on October 15 and November 12, 2014, respectively. (Doc. No. 31, Ex. C, D.) On October 20, 2014, Defendant produced its expert disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B), identifying John Lingenfelter as an expert witness, but did not produce an expert report with its disclosure. (Doc. No. 31, Ex. G.)
On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel and to Amend the Scheduling Order to Extend the Deadline for Discovery. (Doc. No. 11.) On December 17, 2014, the Court held a hearing on that motion. (Doc. No. 21.) The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion, amending the Pretrial Scheduling Order to extend the discovery deadline to January 15, 2015, and to extend the deadline for dispositive motions to March 15, 2015. (Doc. No. 22.)
On March 6, 2015, counsel for Plaintiff filed a Meet-and-Confer Statement, asserting that he had met with counsel for Defendant by telephone on March 2, 2015, and had explained that he “believed it would be necessary and appropriate to bring a motion for summary judgment because [he] did not believe the Defendant had produced any explication of its damages, any explication of how it calculated its damages or given . . . Plaintiff any explanation of its damages case with any level of particularity.” (Doc. No. 32.) In the Meet-and-Confer Statement, counsel for Plaintiff further asserted that Defendant’s counsel said that “he understood that [Plaintiff] would otherwise be bringing a motion and that he was ‘trying’ to find a flight to bring his ‘damages expert, ’ Mr. Lingenfelter, to Minnesota to ‘review blueprints’ and that he had nothing further to offer at this time.” (Id.)
That same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or to Preclude Defendant from Introducing Evidence and for Exclusion of Defendant’s Expert. (Doc. No. 27). In the motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant its motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, that the Court: (a) preclude Defendant from introducing any further evidence pertaining to damages or valuation of the stained-glass windows; (b) exclude Defendant’s expert for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B); (c) exclude Defendant’s expert under Rule 702; (d) grant further relief as the Court deems just and necessary; and (e) award attorney fees, costs, and disbursements. (See id. at 1.)
Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff’s motion. (See generally docket.) On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of ...