Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. BALLARD

S.D. Florida

Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. BALLARD

DecidedMarch 7, 2025

Docket0:23-cv-61652

StatusUnknown

This text of Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. BALLARD (Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. BALLARD) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. BALLARD, (S.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 23-61652-CIV-SINGHAL

ACCELERANT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

vs.

JASON BALLARD,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. ______________________________________/ ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike F. David Famulari as an expert witness. (DE [108]). Defendant opposes the present motion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. The parties have both filed Daubert motions seeking to exclude the testimony of their opposition’s expert witness. See (DE [82]) and (DE [98]). The Court’s pretrial order limits the briefing on Daubert motions and expressly prohibits the filing of reply memoranda unless leave is granted by the Court. See (DE [24]). Notwithstanding that prohibition, Defendant sought (and received) an extension of time to file a reply memorandum in support of his Daubert motion. See (DE [102] and [103]). Defendant did not previously seek, and the Court had not granted, leave to file a reply memorandum. The extension of time was, therefore, erroneously granted. The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective Daubert motions and concludes that reply memoranda are not necessary. This is especially true because this case is being tried to the Court, not to a jury. In a bench trial, barriers to opinion testimony are more relaxed than in a jury trial. United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1268 (11th Cir. 2005). “There is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the gate when the gatekeeper is keeping the gate only for himself.” /d. at 1269. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike F. David Famulari as an expert witness (DE [108]) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the portion of the paperless order at (DE [103]) granting Defendant an extension of time to file a reply memorandum to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s Corrected Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert (DE [99]) is VACATED. Defendant shall not file a reply memorandum. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 7th day of March 2025. Ss UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 23-61652-CIV-SINGHAL

ACCELERANT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

vs.

JASON BALLARD,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. ______________________________________/ ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike F. David Famulari as an expert witness. (DE [108]). Defendant opposes the present motion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. The parties have both filed Daubert motions seeking to exclude the testimony of their opposition’s expert witness. See (DE [82]) and (DE [98]). The Court’s pretrial order limits the briefing on Daubert motions and expressly prohibits the filing of reply memoranda unless leave is granted by the Court. See (DE [24]). Notwithstanding that prohibition, Defendant sought (and received) an extension of time to file a reply memorandum in support of his Daubert motion. See (DE [102] and [103]). Defendant did not previously seek, and the Court had not granted, leave to file a reply memorandum. The extension of time was, therefore, erroneously granted. The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective Daubert motions and concludes that reply memoranda are not necessary. This is especially true because this case is being tried to the Court, not to a jury. In a bench trial, barriers to opinion testimony are more relaxed than in a jury trial. United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1268 (11th Cir. 2005). “There is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the gate when the gatekeeper is keeping the gate only for himself.” /d. at 1269. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike F. David Famulari as an expert witness (DE [108]) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the portion of the paperless order at (DE [103]) granting Defendant an extension of time to file a reply memorandum to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s Corrected Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert (DE [99]) is VACATED. Defendant shall not file a reply memorandum. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 7th day of March 2025. Ss UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. BALLARD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/accelerant-specialty-insurance-company-v-ballard-flsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack