 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GLENN v. CARLSTROM12/18/1996
hat its motivation for issuing this order was its belief that defendants' medical experts should have the benefit of the testimony given by plaintiff's medical experts prior to the time that they testified.
Plaintiff's trial counsel immediately disregarded the amended trial management order by putting plaintiff's mother back on the stand at the time designated for the beginning of the testimony of his first medical expert, Dr. Smith. Notwithstanding the effect of this omission in shortening up the time allowed for Dr. Smith's testimony, that testimony was concluded before noon on April 25, 1994. At the conclusion of cross-examination by defendants' counsel, plaintiff's counsel was granted an opportunity for redirect examination of the witness and declined to make such examination.
After Dr. Cromer had testified in the afternoon of April 25, the district court inquired of plaintiff's counsel if he wished to make any further record with respect to Dr. Cromer's testimony, and counsel advised that he did not. Plaintiff made no offer of proof concerning any testimony that would have been given by Dr. Smith or Dr. Cromer had plaintiff not been subject to the restrictions of the trial management order. Based on our review of these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in its issuance and enforcement of the amended scheduling order.
We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
|