New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Barebones 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure Adequate Where Supplemented by Expert’s Testing Results and His 30(b)(6) Deposition

Download PDF

Ira Green, Inc. v. J.L. Darling Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113746 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 13, 2012):

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Ira Green, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Disclosures and Report and to Preclude Testimony. ***

On July 9, 2012, Green deposed Todd Silver, co-owner of Darling, who had been identified by Darling as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) witness. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6), the Notice of Deposition identified topics for the deposition, including testing of any Ira Green, Brigade and/or IGIQM products (Topic 25); testing of any STORM SAF products (Topic 26); and Comparisons of RITR and STORM SAF products (Topic 27). ***

Green's counsel Christine Bush stated in a declaration that, during the deposition of Mr. Silver, Mr. Silver was asked "whether JLD had tested any Ira Green notebooks in 2012." Dkt. 53-2, at 2. Ms. Bush stated that "JLD's counsel instructed Mr. Silver not to answer that question with respect to testing done for this litigation." Dkt. 53-2, at 2.

On July 13, 2012, Darling served its expert witness disclosure, identifying Mr. Silver as an expert. Dkt. 53-6, at 3. The disclosure stated as follows:

Mr. Silver will provide testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703, and/or 705 on the relative performance characteristics of J.L. Darling's Rite in the Rain Paper and Ira Green's so-called waterproof paper, and the significance of the findings of the IPS laboratory, as contained in the Expert Report of Lucy Hayter, with respect to such performance.

*** On March 28, 2012, in response to Green's discovery requests, Darling provided to Green a video of Mr. Silver performing the testing to which he subjected both Green and Darling's products. ***

Green maintains that Mr. Silver should be precluded from providing expert testimony because the expert disclosures do not provide a summary of the facts and opinions to which Mr. Silver is expected to testify, as is required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii); because Mr. Silver is unqualified to offer an expert opinion; and because Mr. Silver's testimony is excludable under Fed.R.Evid. 403(b). In the alternative, Green requests that the court require Darling to make Mr. Silver available for deposition in Rhode Island (Mr. Silver is a Washington resident) and to pay the costs of the deposition. In its reply, Green argues that Mr. Silver is not competent to testify as an expert, and that his interpretation of Ms. Hayter's testing and data analysis is improper. ***

Darling contends that an expert report was not required for Mr. Silver because Mr. Silver is not a specially-retained expert; that Mr. Silver's experience and qualifications, the nature of the testing he has done on the various products at issue, the results of that testing, and the opinions that he has formulated as a result of that experience have all been provided to Green; and that there is no basis for requiring Darling to pay the costs of redeposition of Mr. Silver, because Mr. Silver was timely disclosed as an expert.

The record shows that the disclosures regarding Mr. Silver were adequate. Whether Mr. Silver's testimony will be admissible at trial is subject to the rules of evidence; a ruling on that issue is premature. If Green wishes more information on Mr. Silver's qualifications, or the basis for Mr. Silver's knowledge and opinion, Green may pursue that by deposition.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice