Intercargo Insurance v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DESIGNATE REBUTTAL EXPERT WITNESSES; ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO MAKE ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(A)(2)(B); ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions regarding plaintiffs expert witness designations, as well as the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. The Court deems these motions appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7.11. Accordingly, the hearing set for October 1, 2001, is removed from the Court’s calendar.

For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs expert witness designation and defendants’ alternative motion to designate rebuttal experts are HEREBY DENIED. For the reasons and in the manner set forth below, the parties’ motions for summary judgment are HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. Introduction

The present action arises out of the theft of a shipment of television sets and video cameras (“the shipment”). The shipment was carried via rail by…