Michael D. Trost v. Trek Bicycle Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that summary judgment was appropriate when the only evidence the plaintiff offered of a product’s defective condition was expert testimony that was excluded
• holding that prejudice existed when opposing party had already completed summary-judgment briefing and new opinion would necessitate reopening discovery and continuing the trial date
• holding that where the only evidence plaintiff offered of product's defective condition under Minnesota law was expert testimony that the district court excluded, summary judgment was appropriate
• holding that a defendant “would have been significantly prejudiced by the late production of [the plaintiffs expert’s] opinion because of lack of time to prepare to refute the evidence at trial” where opinion was disclosed approximately two months before trial
• explaining that “failure to disclose in a timely manner is equivalent to failure to disclose”
• stating that because defendant had prepared its summary judgment motion, in part, on initial disclosure of expert-witness testimony, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's untimely disclosed expert

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).