Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 3/20/1995

Denise v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Citations

  • 160 F.R.D. 458
  • 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3456
  • 1995 WL 121290

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that concern over compelling expert testimony diminished • where expert agrees to consult with adverse party
  • finding that, absent a discovery abuse under Rule 26(b)(4)(B), expert testimony dispute is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 403
  • consulting expert witness context; the expert at issue was not designated by the hiring party to testify
  • excluding testimony of opposing party’s non-testifying expert because it “appealed] to be cumulative save, of course, for the fact that [the expert] was retained in the first instance by the [opposing side].”
  • identifying the court’s interest as “an informed resolution of plaintiffs claim”
  • characterizing prejudice from disclosure of prior retention to jury as “explosive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kaplan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases named Denise v. Eli Lilly & Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.