Opinion

Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. BALLARD

Court
District Court, S.D. Florida
Filed
Mar 7, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.4%

The 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.