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

Unretained Experts — Failure to Identify Specific Facts or Opinions = Inadequate Disclosure — Adversary Must Provide Disclosure for Cross-Designation of Expert If Evidence Different from Proponent’s Designation or Witness’s Deposition

Download PDF

Shepeard v. Labette Cnty. Med. Ctr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31381 (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2013):

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel seeking supplemental information regarding Defendant's non-retained expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C). Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, including the witness disclosures at issue, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's motion.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C) mandates that if a non-retained expert witness "is not required to provide a written report, this disclosure must state: (i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; and (ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." Defendant accurately points out that "there is little to no guidance" in the context of case law as to "what constitutes a sufficient summary under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C) that would obviate any danger of unfair surprise" regarding the potential factual and/or opinion testimony of non-retained witnesses. (Doc. 117-1 at 4.) Plaintiff generally argues, however, that Defendant has "failed to identify the subject matter" on which certain witnesses are to testify and "has made no attempt to summarize the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." (Doc. 116, at 2.)

As to experts A - F, H, and I, all of whom provided various types of medical care to Plaintiff, Defendant has stated that they will "provide testimony on the facts at issue in this case . . . ." *** Clearly this is not a sufficient summary of facts as contemplated by Rule 26 for the simple reason that not a single fact is referenced beyond a passing, introductory reference to the general type of care the individuals provided. Defendant does little more in regard to the opinions on which these individuals will testify, generally referring to "medical opinions on all aspects of the case" (witnesses A, B), "expert opinions on paramedic care" (witnesses C, D, E, F), and "opinion testimony related" to care given as an air ambulance nurse (witnesses H, I). The Court finds this to be patently insufficient as no actual, specific opinions have been summarized or even referenced. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED as to Defendant's disclosures regarding non-retained expert witnesses A - F, H, and I.

Conversely, the Court finds that Defendant's disclosures regarding witnesses G, L, and M are sufficient, albeit succinct. The individuals involved performed specific, identifiable tasks relating to the decedent and/or the accident at issue - the autopsy (witness G) and the responding to the accident (witnesses L, M). There were also reports/documents generated by these witnesses, which should provide Plaintiff with adequate information as to the involvement and relevant opinions of these witnesses. ... Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as to Defendant's disclosures regarding non-retained expert witnesses G, L, and M.

Finally, Defendant has designated two of Plaintiff's experts (witnesses J and K). In its witness disclosure, Defendant merely states that it "cross-designates . . . Plaintiff's retained expert witnesses." ... Plaintiff argues that this "does not relieve Defendant of its duty to follow the statute [sic] in making its designation." (Doc. 116, at 2.) Plaintiff continues that "if Defendant is going to illicit opinions beyond those expressed in the designations or in the depositions [of these witnesses], Plaintiff should have proper notice through compliance with the statutory requirements." (Id.) The Court agrees that Defendant's designation of these two individuals is in noncompliance with the mandates of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Plaintiff's motion is, therefore, GRANTED as to Defendant's disclosures regarding non-retained expert witnesses J and K.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

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