Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.

D. Nevada

Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.

DecidedMay 6, 2026

Docket2:24-cv-02207

StatusUnknown

This text of Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al. (Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 Progressive Northern Insurance Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-02207-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 Tony Pete Flores, et al.

8 Defendant.

9 10 Before this Court is the Guzman Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of 11 Plaintiff’s expert. ECF No. 94. Plaintiff opposed and Defendants replied. ECF Nos. 95 and 96. 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 The Guzman Defendants move under Rule 37 to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, Douglas 14 Richmond, as an improper rebuttal witness. They argue that courts—including those in this 15 district—consistently hold that expert opinions on foreseeable issues are not proper rebuttal and 16 cannot be withheld until the rebuttal deadline. See, e.g., Morgan v. Commercial Union Assurance 17 Cos., 606 F.2d 554, 555–56 (5th Cir. 1979); In re Apex Oil Co., 958 F.2d 243, 245 (8th Cir. 18 1992); Century-Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Gardner, 460 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (D. Nev. 2020). 19 Plaintiff responds that this authority has been misapplied and that Richmond was 20 properly disclosed. Plaintiff also notes that, at the March 2026 hearing, the district judge 21 cautioned that he may not permit the Guzman Defendants’ experts or Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert to 22 testify given their marginal usefulness. See ECF No. 93 at 10–14. Plaintiff represents that it will 23 offer Richmond only if Defendants’ experts are permitted to testify and intends to move to 24 exclude those experts on the same grounds. 25 In light of the district judge’s comments and the anticipated motion practice, the present 26 motion may be rendered moot. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. Defendants 27 may renew the motion if the district judge permits their experts to testify. I. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Guzman Defendants’ motion to exclude (ECF No. 94) is DENIED without prejudice. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for May 8, 2026, is VACATED. 5 6 DATED this 6th day of May, 2026. 7

B A WEKSLER 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 Progressive Northern Insurance Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-02207-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 Tony Pete Flores, et al.

8 Defendant.

9 10 Before this Court is the Guzman Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of 11 Plaintiff’s expert. ECF No. 94. Plaintiff opposed and Defendants replied. ECF Nos. 95 and 96. 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 The Guzman Defendants move under Rule 37 to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, Douglas 14 Richmond, as an improper rebuttal witness. They argue that courts—including those in this 15 district—consistently hold that expert opinions on foreseeable issues are not proper rebuttal and 16 cannot be withheld until the rebuttal deadline. See, e.g., Morgan v. Commercial Union Assurance 17 Cos., 606 F.2d 554, 555–56 (5th Cir. 1979); In re Apex Oil Co., 958 F.2d 243, 245 (8th Cir. 18 1992); Century-Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Gardner, 460 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (D. Nev. 2020). 19 Plaintiff responds that this authority has been misapplied and that Richmond was 20 properly disclosed. Plaintiff also notes that, at the March 2026 hearing, the district judge 21 cautioned that he may not permit the Guzman Defendants’ experts or Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert to 22 testify given their marginal usefulness. See ECF No. 93 at 10–14. Plaintiff represents that it will 23 offer Richmond only if Defendants’ experts are permitted to testify and intends to move to 24 exclude those experts on the same grounds. 25 In light of the district judge’s comments and the anticipated motion practice, the present 26 motion may be rendered moot. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. Defendants 27 may renew the motion if the district judge permits their experts to testify. I. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Guzman Defendants’ motion to exclude (ECF No. 94) is DENIED without prejudice. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for May 8, 2026, is VACATED. 5 6 DATED this 6th day of May, 2026. 7

B A WEKSLER 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/progressive-northern-insurance-company-v-tony-pete-flores-et-al-nvd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack