Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Shannon Corbett re 15 MOTION to Strike 7 Designation of Experts Yvette Rodriguez Brief (Attachments: # 1 Additional Page(s) P's¶
Corbett v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, No. 5:21-cv-00281-H (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 24 · 2022-11-28 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 298 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION § § § § § § § § § § SHANNON CORBETT Plaintiff, V. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, Defendant. CASE NO. 5:21-CV-00281-H __________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER RESPONSE DEFENDANT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT __________________________________________________________________ Carrie A. Harris, Esq. Texas Bar No. 24094705 Matthew L. Harris, Esq. Texas Bar No. 24072812 MATTHEW HARRIS LAW, PLLC 1101 Broadway Lubbock, Texas 79401 Tel. (806) 702-4852 Fax (800) 985-9479 FrontDesk@MatthewHarrisLaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Shannon Corbett November 28, 2022 I Case 5:21-cv-00281-H Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 299 Table of Contents Table of Authorities .................................................................................................................... III I. Summary of the Issues ............................................................................................................ 1 II. Background ............................................................................................................................. 1 III. Objection to the Motion and Motion to Deny ...................................................................... 2 IV. Response to the Motion ....................................................................................................... 2 II Case 5:21-cv-00281-H Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 300 Table of Authorities Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) ......................................................................................................... 1, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) ................................................................................................................... 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) ............................................................................................................... 1, 2 Local Civil Rule 7.1(d) ............................................................................................................... 1, 2 III Case 5:21-cv-00281-H Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 301 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION § § § § § § § § § § SHANNON CORBETT Plaintiff, V. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, Defendant. CASE NO. 5:21-CV-00281-H __________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT __________________________________________________________________ TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES Shannon Corbett, hereinafter called Plaintiff, who files this, her Brief in Support of her Response to Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert, and as grounds thereof would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: I. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES 1. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (“TTUHSC”) failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1(d). 2. TTUHSC failed to make a good faith effort pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) to obtain the purportedly deficient Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) disclosure. II. BACKGROUND 3. On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff designated Yvette Rodriguez as an expert witness in this matter. (Dkt. 7). 4. On November 4, 2022, TTUHSC filed Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 1 Case 5:21-cv-00281-H Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 302 Expert. (the “Motion” herein) (Dkt. 15). TTUHSC moved the Court to strike Ms. Rodriguez's testimony because her designation was allegedly vague and purportedly did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). 5. Throughout this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), Plaintiff has provided TTUHSC every courteousy to remedy its deficient discovery responses before filing a motion with the Court. See Tab 1, Tab 2, and Dkt. 11. III. OBJECTION TO THE MOTION AND MOTION TO DENY 6. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d) an opposed motion must be accompanied by a brief that sets forth the moving party’s contentions of fact and/or law, and argument and authorities. 7. TTUHSC’s contentions of fact and/or law as well as its argument and authorities are wholly within its Motion, and TTUHSC failed to accompany the Motion with a brief. 8. Therefore, Plaintiff objects to the Motion, requests the Court sustain her objection, and DENY the Motion. IV. RESPONSE TO THE MOTION 9. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that parties meet and confer in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes before filing discovery motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). A certification must be part of any discovery motion and the certification must show that a goodfaith effort was made to resolve disputes before filing the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 10. In the nearly six months after Yvette Rodriguez was designated, TTUHSC never indicated to Plaintiff that there may be any deficiencies in the designation or that it desired to resolve the discovery dispute without a court proceeding. 11. TTUHSC lacked the intent to resolve a discovery dispute as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before filing the Motion. TTUHSC only intended to utilize this Court to strike Plaintiff’s expert witness. The Motion states that Counsel for TTUHSC attempted to confer with 2 Case 5:21-cv-00281-H Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 303 Counsel for Plaintiff by email and telephone on November 4, 2022, regarding the substance of the Motion. The email shows Counsel for TTUHSC merely informed Counsel for Plaintiff that she intended to file the Motion and wanted to ascertain whether Plaintiff was opposed or unopposed to the Motion. Tab 3. 12. Plaintiff emailed TTUHSC in an effort to resolve this discovery dispute and offered to provide an amended expert disclosure that would address the alleged deficiencies noted in the Motion. See Tab 4. TTUHSC declined Plaintiff’s attempt to resolve the discovery dispute. Tab 4. 13. Therefore, Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert should be DENIED. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Shannon Corbett prays that Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert be DENIED in its entirety and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled and for which Plaintiff will pray. Respectfully submitted, MATTHEW HARRIS LAW, PLLC 1101 Broadway Lubbock, Texas 79401-3303 FrontDesk@MatthewHarrisLaw.com Tel: (806) 702-4852 | Fax: (800) 985-9479 Carrie A. Harris, Esq. State Bar No. 24094705 Attorney for Plaintiff Certificate of Service I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 28, 2022, in the manner indicated below. Carrie A. Harris, Esq. 3 Case 5:21-cv-00281-H Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 Attorneys for Defendant OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Yvonne D. Bennett P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Yvonne.Bennett@oag.texas.gov Tel: (512) 463-2120 | Fax: (512) 320-0667 Via Email 4 Page 7 of 7 PageID 304