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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Avnet, Inc., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. Dan Coogan, Plaintiff,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV04-0621-PHX-SRB ORDER

Defendants have filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment After the Dispositive Motion Deadline (dkt 187). The deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions was February 28, 2006. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment After the Dispositive Motion Deadline was filed April 10, 2006. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Defendants also filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion to Preclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Jeff Sedlik on April 10, 2006 (dkt. 183). Plaintiff also opposes this motion. Defendants also filed a Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Richard Weisgrau on April 10, 2006. (dkt.184). The Court will deny Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment After the Dispositive Motion Deadline and grant Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Motion to Preclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Jeff Sedlik. Defendants' proposed Motion for Summary Judgment will be considered a trial memorandum on the issue of lost
Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB Document 202 Filed 05/10/2006 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

profits and Defendants' Motions to Preclude the testimony of both of Plaintiff's proposed experts will be ruled on at trial. This case is set for a bench trial on July 11, 2006. This Court has every reason to believe that it will be available to try this case in July 2006. Permitting Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment at this time would result in a continuance of the bench trial. Moreover, unlike in a jury trial, this Court will be in the best position to determine from the evidence at trial, the record related to disclosure and discovery, and the arguments of counsel, whether Plaintiff's experts should be permitted to testify or should be precluded and if permitted what the permissible scope of their expert testimony will be. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Summary Judgment After Dispositive Motion Deadline. (dkt 187). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Motion to Preclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Jeff Sedlik. (dkt. 183). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will not receive any written order from the Court on the two pending Motions to Preclude Plaintiff's Experts until at or near the time of trial and must have all of their witnesses available and ready to testify. DATED this 10th day of May, 2006.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB Document 202 Filed 05/10/2006 Page 2 of 2