ORDER: The defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in full (Diet. No. 44). The Court's decision resolves all remaining claims in this matter and obviates the¶

Grodman v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, No. 5:23-cv-00210 (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 61 · 2025-11-17 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:23-cv-00210-H

Document 61

Filed 11/17/25

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION

PageID 2709

FILED - USDC - NDTX - SA
NOV 17°25 PM2216 C
,

SCHYLER GRODMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 5:23-CV-210-H

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER,
Defendant.

ORDER
Before the Court is the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 44), the
defendant’s Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of Gregory Care (Dkt. No. 42) and
Stephen W. Nicholas (Dkt. No. 43), and the parties’ joint motion to continue the trial date
and pretrial deadlines (Dkt. No. 58).

Having reviewed the parties’ briefing on each motion,

the Court makes the following determinations:
The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in full (Dkt. No. 44).

The

Court’s decision resolves all remaining claims in this matter and obviates the need for a trial.
Accordingly, the defendant’s Daubert motions (Dkt. Nos. 42; 43), as well as the parties’ joint
motion for a continuance (Dkt. No. 58), are denied as moot.
existing pretrial deadlines are vacated.

The trial setting and all

See Dkt. No. 37.

A memorandum opinion and order explaining the Court’s decisions will issue in the
near future.
So ordered on November

| } , 2025.

ea
JAMES
UNITED

WESLEY HENDRIX
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE