Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00233/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00233-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e-2ra Job Discrimination (Race)

---

1

17cv233-GPC(BGS)

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

ADRIAN A. SAMPSON, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

VITA-MIX CORPORATION, an OHIO 

Corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv233-GPC(BGS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT 

TESTIMONY AND REPORT OF 

MATTHEW F. CARROLL, M.D. 

[Dkt. No. 31.]

Plaintiff filed a motion to preclude expert testimony and report of Matthew F. 

Carroll, M.D. in conjunction with Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 

31.) The motion is fully briefed. Dr. Carroll’s declaration is cited to in the introduction 

of the motion for summary judgment and in Defendant’s separate statement of undisputed 

facts. (Dkt. No. 34-1 at 8; Dkt. No. 39-1, D’s Reply to P’s Response to D’s SSUF at 2-

3.) Plaintiff objected to the separate statement of undisputed facts arguing that Dr. 

Carroll’s opinions are not material or admissible and cite to their motion to exclude. 

(Dkt. No. 39-1, D’s Reply to P’s Response to D’s SSUF at 2-3.) Defendant replied 

stating these “introductory facts were offered for general background and not as material 

facts necessary to any of the issues raised in this motion for summary.” (Id.) The 

Scheduling Order in the case provides that “other pretrial motions, including those 

Case 3:17-cv-00233-GPC-BGS Document 45 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv233-GPC(BGS)

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

addressing Daubert issues related to dispositive motions must be filed by March 5, 

2018.” (Dkt. No. 16.) Since Dr. Carroll’s opinion is not relevant to the motion for 

summary judgment, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to exclude subject to refiling 

once the Court sets a hearing on motions in limine at the pretrial conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 21, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00233-GPC-BGS Document 45 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2