Western Alliance Bank v. Jefferson
Filing
187
ORDER AND OPINION granting 113 Motion for Discovery. Plaintiff may not call James Tucciarone to offer opinion testimony. If he is called as a lay witness, any testimony which purports to summarize documents or events must be strictly limited to lay testimony and may not be used as a back door through which opinion testimony is elicited. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 8/6/15.(LSP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Western Alliance Bank,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Richard Jefferson,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
Richard Jefferson,
)
)
Counter-claimant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Western Alliance Bank,
)
)
Counter-defendant.
)
)
)
Richard Jefferson,
)
)
Third-party plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Theodore Kritza & Michelle Lee
)
Kritza,
)
)
Third-party defendants. )
)
2:14-cv-0761 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at Docket 113]
28
-1-
1
2
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 113, plaintiff Western Alliance Bank (“Bank”) moves to preclude expert
3
opinion testimony by James Tucciarone (“JT”). Third-party defendant Kritza filed a
4
joinder at docket 114. Defendant Richard Jefferson (“Jefferson”) opposes the motion at
5
docket 138. Bank replies at docket 147. Oral argument was requested but would not
6
assist the court.
7
8
9
10
II. BACKGROUND
The background giving rise to this litigation has been described in detail in the
order at docket 183. It need not be repeated here. How ever, some procedural
background needs to be set out.
11
Rule 26(a) and the court’s Scheduling Order at docket 26 set out numerous pre-
12
trial tasks to be accomplished by the parties.1 Jefferson does not dispute the accuracy
13
of the following:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1) Jefferson supplied the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A) on July
14, 2014 and did not identify JT as a person likely to possess
discoverable information.
2) Jefferson provided a supplemental disclosure of information required by
Rule 26(a)(1)(A) on October 14, 2014 and did not identif y JT as a person
likely to possess discoverable information.
3) On November 10, 2014, the date set by the court for Jefferson’s expert
disclosures, Jefferson identified only William J. Flynn as an expert. JT
was not mentioned.
4) Jefferson filed the witness list required by the court’s order on February
27, 2015, at docket 74. In it he listed num erous lay witnesses, including
JT. The witness list identified only William J. Flynn as an expert witness.
5) Also on February 27, 2015, Jefferson supplied a second supplement to
the disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(A) which indicated for the first time
that JT might possess discoverable information.
6) JT’s deposition was noticed for May 7, 2015. About 12 hours before
JT’s deposition was to commence, Jefferson disclosed a report and other
papers containing JT’s opinions, summaries and analyses regarding
certain accounts.
26
27
28
1
Some dates in the original Scheduling Order were extended by subsequent orders.
-2-
1
2
3
4
7) At the deposition on May 7, 2015, it was learned that Jefferson had
hired JT prior to commencement of this lawsuit which was filed in state
court on February 20, 2014. Jefferson had possession of JT’s report and
the related documents containing his opinions since January of 2014, if
not earlier.
8) Jefferson has not moved to amend the Scheduling Order to permit him
to name JT as an expert witness.
5
9) Discovery has closed.
6
The recitation of uncontested facts above establishes the conduct of Jefferson’s
7
counsel to be among the worst “sand-bagging” the assigned judge has seen since
8
taking the bench in 1992. In a separate order addressing motions aimed at excluding
9
the testimony of William J. Flynn, the court noted that the late disclosures by
10
Jefferson’s counsel were not substantially justified, but nevertheless allowed Jefferson
11
to use Flynn as an expert witness because a lesser sanction than exclusion of his
12
opinion testimony was deemed appropriate. Here that is not the case. Nothing short of
13
foreclosing use of JT as an expert witness pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) is an appropriate
14
sanction for the egregious behavior by Jefferson’s lawyers and the prejudice to Bank,
15
Kritza, and the court’s efforts to provide for the orderly development of this litigation.
16
V. CONCLUSION
17
For the reasons above, the motion at docket 113 is GRANTED. Plaintiff may not
18
call James Tucciarone to offer opinion testimony. If he is called as a lay witness, any
19
testimony which purports to summarize documents or events must be strictly limited to
20
lay testimony and may not be used as a back door through which opinion testimony is
21
elicited.
22
DATED this 6th day of August, 2015.
23
24
/s/
25
26
JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?