GULF RUNNER, LLC
v.
SEAHUNTER, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A district court denied a defendant's request to limit plaintiff's expert discovery, specifically prohibiting the plaintiff's rebuttal expert from conducting new testing on a vessel. The court held that such challenges to expert methodology are better addressed through Daubert motions or motions in limine rather than discovery disputes.
The court held that defendant's request is not a proper discovery dispute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The challenge to expert methodology and admissibility is better addressed through Daubert motions or motions in limine at trial, not through discovery limitations. Since the expert discovery deadline has not yet passed, plaintiff's expert discovery is permitted.
[1] A magistrate judge lacks the authority to rule on the admissibility of evidence at trial, which is the province of the presiding district judge.
[2] Requests for exclusion of expert testimony are properly addressed through a Daubert motion or a motion in limine, not a discovery dispute.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“admissibility, as opposed to discoverability, 'constitutes a separate question.'”
Establishes the distinction between discovery disputes and admissibility challenges to expert testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a dispute over a motor vessel. Defendant SeaHunter sought to prevent Plaintiff Gulf Runner's rebuttal expert from conducting additi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Disputes cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant SeaHunter, Inc.'s request for a discovery hearing regarding Plaintiff Gulf Runner, LLC's “ability to use/rely upon additional/new, significant, destructive and invasive testing on the subject motor vessel by its ‘rebuttal expert. . ." [ECF No. 62 at 1]. Defendant requests that the Court prohibit Plaintiffs rebuttal expert “from using new testing to formulate his rebuttal opinion and use that to 'rebut' [Defendant's] expert. . ." [Id. at 6]. The Court heard argument from counsel at the February 5, 2025, Discovery Hearing and has considered all relevant authorities.
As stated on the record, Defendant's request is not a proper discovery dispute, and does not appear to fall under the purview of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. See Fleisher v. 1990 53' Viking Sport Fishing Vessel named F-TROOP, USCG No. 1077134, No. 10-62530-CIV, 2011 WL 13154043, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2011) (noting that admissibility, as opposed to discoverability, "constitutes a separate question."); see also Woods v. Reeve, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6108, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2023) (“[As the Magistrate Judge,] I have no authority to rule on what testimony may or may not come in at trial; that is the province of the presiding District Judge."). Defendant
essentially seeks the exclusion of Plaintiff's expert report and testimony at trial, which is better addressed in a Daubert motion or a motion in limine. Moreover, Defendant seeks to limit Plaintiff's expert discovery targeted to rebut Defendant's own experts. Defendant mainly contends the discovery should have been conducted earlier in the case, however, the deadline for expert discovery has not yet passed. Therefore, at this juncture, it is ORDERED that Defendant's request to limit Plaintiff's expert discovery is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of February 2025.
LISETTE M. REID
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams; and All Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulf Runner, LLC v. SeaHunter, Inc., 2011 WL 13154043 (S.D. Fla. 2025)…stated on the record, Defendant's request is not a proper discovery dispute, and does not appear to fall under the purview of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. See Fleisher v. 1990 53' Viking Sport Fishing Vessel named F-TROOP, USCG No. 1077134, No. 10-62530-CIV, 2011 WL 13154043, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2011) (noting that admissibility, as opposed to discoverability, "constitutes a separate question."); see also Woods v. Reeve, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6108, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2023) (“[As the Magistrate Judge,] I hav…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Gulf Runner, LLC v. SeaHunter, Inc., 2011 WL 13154043 (S.D. Fla. 2025)