Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00629/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00629-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1333in Personal Injury

---

1

3:19-cv-00629-H-AGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEE PLUNKETT, an individual and 

heir of the Estate of SCOTT PLUNKETT; 

GLOREE PLUNKETT, a minor, by and 

through her Guardian Ad Litem, TERRY 

ALLEN ROBERTSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LEATT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00629-H-AGS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

LEATT CORPORATION’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMBINED 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

[Doc. No. 67.]

 On March 10, 2020, Defendant Leatt Corporation (“Defendant”) filed a motion 

seeking leave to file a combined memorandum of law in support of Defendant’s challenge 

to the admissibility of certain witness opinions. (Doc. No. 67.) In the motion, Defendant 

states that it plans to challenge the admissibility of certain witness opinions under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, and California law. 

(Id.) Defendant accordingly seeks leave to file a combined memorandum “[t]o avoid 

unnecessary duplication” by offering its statement of the law in a single memorandum. 

(Id.)

The Court denies Defendant’s motion. If Defendant seeks to exclude evidence based 

on discovery rules, such as Rule 26, that analysis must be made in a motion before the 

Case 3:19-cv-00629-H-AGS Document 68 Filed 03/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-00629-H-AGS

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

magistrate judge. If Defendant seeks to exclude witness testimony through a Daubert

motion, that may be made be done in a motion to the District Court. Daubert does not 

provide grounds to exclude an expert opinion simply because a party disagrees with the 

expert’s conclusions. Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Any pretrial motions filed by the parties must also comply with the Court’s local rules. See

Civ. Local Rule 7.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2020

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:19-cv-00629-H-AGS Document 68 Filed 03/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2