Court Opinion

ID: 9783493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:47:17.394137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:24.525446
License: Public Domain

Justice EID,
dissenting.
In this case, the plaintiff has already designated twenty-one experts. Maj. op. at 248. She has already received one extension of the expert designation deadline. Id. In addition, she has failed to establish that Dr. Lewis' testimony is essential to her case, as Dr. Dwyer can testify to the presence of the calcification. Id. at 250. Finally, discovery has been ongoing in this case for over six months. Id. at 248-49. Under these cireum-stances, I would not find that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the plaintiff to add a twenty-second expert. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority.