Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 5, 2025

ReCor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co.

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:22-cv-03072
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In ReCor Medical v. Medtronic Ireland, Judge Hixson denied ReCor’s motion without prejudice because it concerned expert opinions for summary judgment or trial, not a discovery dispute.

Who this affects

ReCor Medical, Inc., Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co., and the other defendants were affected because the court denied ReCor’s request to strike material from Dr. McDuff’s expert report without prejudice.

What happened

ReCor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co. involved a joint letter about whether certain material in an expert report could be used in the case.

ReCor asked the court to strike facts and opinions from Dr. DeForest McDuff’s report because ReCor said they were submitted too late. ReCor sought to prevent the material from being used in summary-judgment briefing or at trial.

United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied ReCor’s motion without prejudice. Judge Hixson said the issue was not a discovery dispute and should instead be raised before Judge Thompson through a motion in limine or in connection with summary judgment, consistent with the case-management and scheduling order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
ReCor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co. · No. 3:22-cv-03072
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
June 5, 2025

Background

The parties submitted a joint discovery letter brief. ReCor Medical, Inc. moved to strike facts and opinions in the expert report of Dr. DeForest McDuff, arguing that the material was untimely. The requested relief would have barred use of those opinions in summary-judgment briefing and at trial.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Thompson had referred discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Hixson. But Judge Hixson concluded that the issue presented was not a discovery dispute. He stated that the dispute was more properly addressed through a motion in limine, which is a request to limit evidence before trial, or in connection with a motion for summary judgment. Any further presentation had to be consistent with Judge Thompson’s case-management and scheduling order.

Disposition

The court denied ReCor’s motion without prejudice to raising the dispute before Judge Thompson in an appropriate manner. The order did not decide whether Dr. McDuff’s facts or opinions were admissible or could be used in summary-judgment briefing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.