Court Opinion

ID: 9584742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:52:19.957628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:46.387762
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting:
¶ 21 I concur except I do not subscribe to the characterization in footnote five of the statement in Marble’s brief that Boice sought to substitute a new expert “10 weeks after the cut-off’ date as being “misleading.” At another place in that same brief, Marble acknowledged that some depositions were taken after the discovery cut-off date.
¶ 22 While the first above-mentioned statement in Marble’s brief was not a wholly accurate statement of the facts since the cutoff date had been extended for at least some purposes, the statement is of no consequence in the context of this case and therefore is not “misleading.” What is important and material is that Boice’s motion to substitute a new expert came seven months after the cutoff date for the parties to designate their expert witnesses. This deadline had not been extended and was controlling on the substitution of experts — not the cut-off date of discovery.
¶ 23 Justice STEWART concurs in Chief Justice HOWE’s concurring and dissenting-opinion.