N.D. Ohio· 3/5/2009
R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC
Citations
- 657 F. Supp. 2d 899
- 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87362
- 2009 WL 3049877
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that party could not depose the opposition’s expert where the expert had been designated as a trial witness then redesignated as a nontestifying witness after disseminating his report
- noting that many courts view House as only applying to Rule 35 experts
- discussing balancing test that mirrors Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in connection with the taking of depositions of a redesignated non-testifying expert
- adopting the majority view that where a party identified an expert as testifying but subsequently redesignated the expert as non-testifying, the opposing party was only allowed to depose that expert upon a showing of exceptional circumstances
- “Lack of diligence is not a sufficient justification for deposing an opposing party’s non-testifying expert”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sara Lioi
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Layman ex rel. Layman v. Junior Players Golf Academy, Inc.D. South Carolina· 2016-04-21· cited 11×
- J.S. v. A.S.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2024-12-26· cited 4×
- Kurt West v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Goodrich Pump and Engine Control Systems, Inc., and Rolls-Royce Corp.D. New Hampshire· 2017-10-25
- Ate My Heart, Inc. v. GA GA Jeans LimitedTrademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2014-07-22
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. George E. Moore (88-5932) and Charles R. Morse, (88-5942)Sixth Circuit· 1990-10-09· cited 209×
- Durflinger v. ArtilesTenth Circuit· 1984-01-27· cited 98×
- Employer's Reinsurance Corp. v. Clarendon National InsuranceD. Kansas· 2003-03-04· cited 53×
- House v. Combined Insurance Co. of AmericaN.D. Iowa· 1996-07-31· cited 49×
- Adams v. Shell Oil Co.E.D. Louisiana· 1990-09-26· cited 40×
- FMC Corp. v. Vendo Co.E.D. California· 2002-04-17· cited 37×
- Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc.N.D. Illinois· 1972-11-08· cited 37×
- Denise v. Eli Lilly & Co.S.D. New York· 1995-03-20· cited 31×
- Spearman Industries, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceN.D. Illinois· 2001-01-23· cited 27×
- Green v. NygaardCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2006-09-28· cited 23×
- Ross v. Burlington Northern RailroadN.D. Illinois· 1991-06-13· cited 15×
- Crowe v. NivisonD. Maryland· 1993-01-28· cited 8×
- Wolt v. Sherwood, a Division of Harsco Corp.D. Utah· 1993-08-06· cited 7×
- Manship v. United StatesM.D. Louisiana· 2006-12-18· cited 7×
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.