Endorsement on Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Plaintiff's Liability Expert (#10.0): DENIED After hearing and upon review of the expert disclosures of both Plaintiff and Defendant's experts, the Court Denies the Defendant's Motion. It is well settled that deposition of an adverse party's expert should be permitted only when Answers to Interrogatories (expert) are inadequate, incomplete and should only be granted in narrow circumstances. See Lozoraitis v. Lachman, 16 Mass. L. Rptr. 809 (2003) and such an order is within the sound discretion of the Court. Here, the Plaintiff's expert disclosure is not incomplete nor inadequate. Any deficiencies averred by the Defendant in this case are fodder for cross examination but not a basis for expert deposition.

• 
• 
• 

                        

						    Preview
                        
                        
                          259

. ie naa bho.
ewe. oat

1d

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

yesh
Agu
ipa

Pity We A,
LObe

BRISTOL, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
C.A. NO. 1873CV00803
% ) BRISTOL
‘ iy GILDA VICARIO, ) 8s SUPERIOR COURT
YR Plaintiff, )
i . ) JAN 1°3 2020
Bae
MARC J SANTOS. ESQ.
4 3 r ) CLERK/MAGISTRATE
MAYFLOWER EMERALD SQUARE, LLC, _)
Defendants )
3 )
\ DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL

 

DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFI’S LIABILITY EXPERT

 

sels fee Utes

Melee peece, bp AE pet

Defendant, Mayflower Emerald Square, LLC (“Mayflower”) respectfully requests

that this honorable Court, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(a) compel Plaintiff to produce

2, até. §0F (Qa03) ark

Zz
th, BALMER Stet ley Y

her liability expert, George Melchior, R.A., P.E., LEED AP, for the taking of his

deposition. As grounds for this motion, Defendant states that the report produced by Mr.

WS LifedseF

+) Melchior is deficient in disclosing what he will say at trial or how he reached his

AS
tase pote Le.
i, Vo Semen
wl

hice, tatce. B…