Legal Opinion
Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hosiery
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 12, 2002No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 96-1949PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ORLOFSKY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs travails throughout the six-year odyssey of this lawsuit have been well-documented. Plaintiff has repeatedly ignored this Court’s deadlines, has filed numerous eleventh-hour motions, has identified and then withdrawn a succession of expert witnesses, and, in general, has exhibited a cavalier disregard for the deadlines and orders entered by this Court. With the instant motion in li-mine, filed on the eve of the retrial of Plaintiffs remaining claims, to exclude Defendant’s expert witness, Plaintiff now seeks to gain an unfair advantage from the Court…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Marbled Murrelet v. BabbittCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee HosieryDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
- Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee HosieryDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Beard Research, Inc. v. KatesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2010
- Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee HosieryDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2002
- LITHUANIAN COMMERCE CORP. LTD. v. Sara Lee HosieryDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2002