DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd
- Gregory Woods
- 1:17-cv-04576
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd, Judge Woods set deadlines for an expert-evidence challenge and referred it to a magistrate judge.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, including the plaintiffs’ damages expert and the assigned magistrate judge who will resolve the anticipated expert-evidence motion.
What happened
In DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd, the court set June 5, 2023, as the deadline for defendants to file their planned motion challenging the opinions of the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The court set deadlines for the plaintiffs’ opposition and any defendants’ reply.
The court said it would consider any requests for summary judgment after resolving the expert-evidence motion. It did not decide the expert challenge, summary judgment, or the underlying dispute in this order.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also stated that the expert-evidence motion was not case-dispositive and would be referred by a separate order to the assigned magistrate judge for resolution.
The detailed version
- DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd · No. 1:17-cv-04576
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 6, 2023
Order and deadlines
At an April 6, 2023 conference, the court set June 5, 2023, as the deadline for defendants to file their anticipated Daubert motion. A Daubert motion is a request to exclude expert testimony or opinions as legally unreliable or otherwise inadmissible. The planned motion concerns the opinions of the plaintiffs’ damages expert.
The plaintiffs’ opposition is due within 30 days after defendants file and serve the motion. Any defendants’ reply is due within 30 days after the plaintiffs file and serve their opposition.
Other procedural rulings
The court stated that it would consider applications for summary judgment after resolving the defendants’ Daubert motion. It also stated that the Daubert motion is non-dispositive, meaning it does not by itself resolve the case, and that the motion would be referred by separate order to the assigned magistrate judge.
This order sets a schedule and assigns responsibility for resolving the anticipated expert-evidence motion. It does not rule on that motion, any summary-judgment application, or the merits of the parties’ dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.