Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01477/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01477-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. FAMILY

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LLLP, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS

vs. CASE NO. 4:04CV1477GH

SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are defendants’ (Simon) motion to modify the October 10,

2006, order to permit Simon to present independent expert testimony and other evidence

at the Rule 706 expert hearing, Simon’s motion for a hearing to take testimony with respect

to the report of Porter Brownlee, and Simon’s motion to permit depositions of Courtappointed expert’s assisting experts. Basically, Simon wants to conduct additional

discovery beyond that of taking the deposition of the Court’s appointed expert, Porter

Brownlee, and to offer additional evidence in response to Brownlee’s report. Plaintiffs

oppose any request by Simon to conduct additional discovery or offer additional evidence.

Simon states that it needs to introduce its own witnesses and evidence to respond

to Brownlee’s meaning of “good and tenantable condition.” “Good and tenantable

condition” has been at issue since the beginning of this action. Simon has had ample

opportunity to present its own expert testimony regarding the issue. 

The Court will grant Simon’s request that the Court schedule a hearing at which

Brownlee can be examined by the parties. See Federal Trade Com’n v. Enforma Natural

Prods., 362 F. 3d 1204, 1214 (9th Cir. 2004) (court-appointed expert should have been

subject to cross examination about information relied upon in forming his opinions). 

Case 4:04-cv-01477-BRW Document 201 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

The Court will not alter its October 10th Order to allow Simon to proffer additional evidence.

Furthermore, the Court denies Simon’s request to depose those professionals who worked

with Brownlee. The Court is not of the opinion that additional discovery of those assisting

Brownlee is warranted, particularly as Simon’s request will unnecessarily prolong and

burden the proceedings. The basis of Brownlee’s opinion can be adequately probed

further at a hearing during which Simon will have an opportunity to examine Brownlee.

Therefore, a hearing at which Brownlee can be examined is set for December 20,

2006 at 1:30 p.m. 

Accordingly, the motion to modify the October 10, 2006, order to permit Simon to

present independent expert testimony and other evidence at the Rule 706 expert hearing

is denied; the motion for a hearing to take testimony with respect to the report of Porter

Brownlee is granted; and the motion to permit depositions of Court- appointed expert’s

assisting experts is denied. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Porter

Brownlee, 1501 N. Pierce, Little Rock, AR 72207. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2006.

___________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-01477-BRW Document 201 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2