Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alvarez v. Alvarez

United States District Court, D. Maryland

June 2, 2017

ENEDINA ALVAREZ Plaintiff
v.
JOSE CARMEN MAGANA ALVAREZ Defendant

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

          Paula Xinis United States District Judge.

         The Court has before it Petitioner's Motion in Limine to Exclude Respondent's Proposed Expert With Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and Request for Hearing [ECF No. 36], Petitioner's Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Portions of Respondent's Article 14 Declaration with Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and Request for Hearing [ECF No. 39]. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In brief, [1] Petitioner, Enedina Alvarez (the “Petitioner” or “Mother”), filed her Verified Petition for Return of the Children to Mexico and Issuance of Show Cause Order [ECF No. 1] (“Petition for Return”)[2] on April 12, 2017. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled to be held on May 30, 2017, and the Court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge for confidential mediation[3] proceedings. Initial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 13. The Mother filed an Amended Verified Petition for Return of the Children to Mexico [ECF No. 11] on April 20, 2017, which added a request that this Court recognize and accord comity to the Mexico trial court's decision and the Mexico appellate court's decision.[4]

         On April 26, 2017, the Court issued an Agreed Scheduling Order [ECF No. 16] based upon the parties' Consent Scheduling Order [ECF No. 15]. The Father filed his Answer [ECF No. 21] on May 10, 2017, denying that the Mother had legal custody over the children and denying that the children had been wrongfully removed from Mexico. Answer ¶¶ 35-39, ECF No. 21.

         International Child Abduction, done at The Hague The Agreed Scheduling Order [ECF No. 16] required the parties to designate any experts on or before May 17, 2017. Respondent requested an extension of time for certain pre-trial filings, which was granted in part, extending the deadline to designate an expert witness until the close of business on May 24, 2017. Memorandum and Order 2, ECF No. 27. Respondent's Expert Designation [ECF No. 30] was timely filed, but it did not comply with Rule[5] 26(a)(2)(B). The Court also granted Respondent's request to delay the disclosure of declaration of foreign law until May 24, 2017, provided that an untranslated version of the document was provided to Petitioner's counsel by May 22, 2017. Id.

         The Court also provided for relief to the Petitioner as a result of the extension:

Petitioner may, at or before the trial hearing, request appropriate relief in response to the extensions herein, for example in regard to any rebuttal expert or continuance in part of the trial hearing for further cross examination of Respondent's witnesses or presentation of additional witnesses for the Petitioner.

Id.

         By the current Motions in Limine, the Petitioner requests this Court to exclude Respondent's expert for failure to comply with the Rule 26 written report requirements and to redact[6]portions of the Respondent's Article 14 declaration of foreign law.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Motion to Exclude Respondent's Expert

         The broad purpose of the discovery rules is to enable parties to prepare for trial. “[D]iscovery is founded upon the policy that the search for truth should be aided.” McDougall v. Dunn, 468 F.2d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 1972)(quoting Tiedman v. Am. Pigment Corp., 253 F.2d 803, 808 (4th Cir. 1958)). Article 11 of the Hague Convention contemplates an outside limit of six weeks from the date of filing for the determination of the merits of a wrongful removal case. Given such tight timelines, the parties must cooperate with each other to complete discovery expeditiously in advance of any evidentiary hearing that the Court conducts. Likewise, the Court and parties must operate under a more flexible standard to permit both sides a fair opportunity to develop their respective factual records.

         With regard to the instant motion to exclude expert testimony, Rule 26 provides:

Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, [the expert witness] disclosure must be accompanied by a written report--prepared and signed by the witness--if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case . . . . The report must contain:
(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.