Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Delbello Donnellan x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Assault Libel & Slander | Massachusetts
Order on Motion to Strike
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 749 MOTION to Strike 742 Response Appian's Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts. Pega moved to strike Appian's statement of additional undisputed facts (Doc. No. 742 ) and requests expedited briefing. Doc. No. 749 . Both the request and the motion are DENIED. Nothing in Local Rule 56.1 or this Session's standing order on summary-judgment practice specifically precludes the assertion of additional material facts by the nonmoving party. Common sense and prior experience suggest that the party opposing summary judgment may have additional facts bearing on the resolution of the motion. If Pega seeks to respond to Appian's statement of additional undisputed facts, it may do so in conjunction with its reply briefing. (FGD)
Pega moved to strike Appian's statement of additional undisputed facts (Doc. No. 742 ) and requests expedited briefing. Doc. No. 749 . Both the request and the motion are DENIED. Nothing in Local Rule 56.1 or this Session's standing order on summary-judgment practice specifically precludes the assertion of additional material facts by the nonmoving party. Common sense and prior experience suggest that the party opposing summary judgment may have additional facts bearing on the resolution of the motion. If Pega seeks to respond to Appian's statement of additional undisputed facts, it may do so in conjunction with its reply briefing.
(FGD)
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 705 MOTION Substitute Expert and Supplement Expert Disclosure. As the Court ordered, Doc. No. 699 , Appian moved for leave to substitute its rebuttal expert to Pega’s report from Dr. Robinson due to the passing of its original rebuttal expert, Dr. Cole. Doc. No. 705 . The parties agree that the expert’s death is a “substantial justifi[cation]” for a substitute expert under Rule 37(c)(1). Id. at 1–2; Doc. No. 745 at 1. They also agree about the limitations to which a substitute expert’s report is subject: the substitute expert is limited to the same subject matter as Dr. Cole’s report without meaningful changes. Doc. No. 705 at 3–4; Doc. No. 745 at 7. Appian “commits that it will not proceed with any substitute expert whose report or testimony falls outside these bounds.” Doc. No. 705 at 4. That is a wise commitment, of course, given that any new or different theories, opinions, or approaches would likely be subject to a successful motion to strike under Rule 37. The parties disagree, however, as to the timeline. Appian asks to disclose its substitute expert and the expert’s report by August 31, 2026. Id. at 2. Pega asks the Court to order Appian to identify its new expert “immediately” and to submit any supplemental report by July 21, 2026. Doc. No. 745 at 1, 7. Under the circumstances, the appropriate course is somewhere in the middle. Appian shall disclose its substitute expert and any supplemental report by July 31, 2026. Pega is entitled to depose the new expert, and the parties shall confer and agree upon a schedule for that deposition. Appian’s motion to substitute (Doc. No. 705 ) is ALLOWED to the extent described herein and otherwise DENIED.(FGD)
As the Court ordered, Doc. No. 699 , Appian moved for leave to substitute its rebuttal expert to Pega’s report from Dr. Robinson due to the passing of its original rebuttal expert, Dr. Cole. Doc. No. 705 . The parties agree that the expert’s death is a “substantial justifi[cation]” for a substitute expert under Rule 37(c)(1). Id. at 1–2; Doc. No. 745 at 1. They also agree about the limitations to which a substitute expert’s report is subject: the substitute expert is limited to the same subject matter as Dr. Cole’s report without meaningful changes. Doc. No. 705 at 3–4; Doc. No. 745 at 7. Appian “commits that it will not proceed with any substitute expert whose report or testimony falls outside these bounds.” Doc. No. 705 at 4. That is a wise commitment, of course, given that any new or different theories, opinions, or approaches would likely be subject to a successful motion to strike under Rule 37.
The parties disagree, however, as to the timeline. Appian asks to disclose its substitute expert and the expert’s report by August 31, 2026. Id. at 2. Pega asks the Court to order Appian to identify its new expert “immediately” and to submit any supplemental report by July 21, 2026. Doc. No. 745 at 1, 7. Under the circumstances, the appropriate course is somewhere in the middle. Appian shall disclose its substitute expert and any supplemental report by July 31, 2026. Pega is entitled to depose the new expert, and the parties shall confer and agree upon a schedule for that deposition. Appian’s motion to substitute (Doc. No. 705 ) is ALLOWED to the extent described herein and otherwise DENIED.
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.