Legal Opinion
Applera Corp. v. MJ Research Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided February 3, 2004No. 3:98cv1201(JBA)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Offering Expert Testimony on an Issue from Any Witness Not Identified as an Expert on that Issue or Who Did Not Submit a Report [Doc. #762-6]
ARTERTON, District Judge.
Plaintiffs renew them motion in limine pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, to preclude defendants MJ Research, Inc., Michael Finney and John Finney (collectively “MJ”) from offering expert testimony on any issue from any trial witness, including an employee-trial expert, who was not identified as an expert on that issue or did not submit an expert report, in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Signtech USA, Ltd.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1998
- KW Plastics v. United States Can Co.District Court, M.D. Alabama · 2000
- Navajo Nation v. NorrisDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1999
- Duluth Lighthouse for the Blind v. C.G. Bretting Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2000
- Murphy v. Barberino Brothers, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2001
3Cited by4 opinions
- Vigilant Insurance v. East Greenwich Oil Co.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2006
- Murphy Medical Associates, LLC v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2023
- Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. BetenbaughDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- Thompson v. Seattle Public SchoolsDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2025