Harrell v. Independence County, Arkansas et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Strike ; granting 36 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Court imposes the following condensed briefing schedule for dispositive motions: Motions due by 2 August 2013; Responses due by 16 August 2013; Replies due by 23 August 2013. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/26/13. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, ARKANSAS;
ODUS FULMER, Tax Assessor for Independence
County, Arkansas, Individually and in his Official
Capacity; and GREG POTTS, Supervisor,
Independence County, Arkansas Tax Assessor's Office,
Individually and in his Official Capacity
1. The Independence County Defendants' renewed motion to bar any
testimony from Dr. Bradley Hughes, NQ 31, is granted in part and denied in
part. Harrell concedes that Dr. Hughes cannot give expert testimony here.
NQ 34. A treating doctor can offer an expert opinion in addition to testifying
about the treatment facts. E.g., Bland v. Verizon Wireless, (VAW) L.L.C., 538
F.3d 893, 897 (8th Cir. 2008). But the doctor must comply with the applicable
provisions of Rule 26(a)(2), and respond fully to any applicable discovery,
about any expert testimony. E.g., NQ 31-1 at 13-14. Neither step was taken
here. The motion is granted on any expert testimony from this witness.
The motion is denied, though, on any testimony from Dr. Hughes about
the facts of his cardiology care and treatment of Harrell. Of course relevance
must be shown. FED. R. EVID. 401. And the Court is not informed enough
about the case at this point to decide Rule 401 questions. Assuming some
relevance, Dr. Hughes may testify about the care-and-treatment details. The
Independence County Defendants urge that this will be expert testimony in
fact-witness clothing because Dr. Hughes will testify about causation. No.
Causation, in these circumstances, is a matter for an expert. Bland, supra. And
Dr. Hughes, it is conceded and decided, may give no expert opinions.
Harrell timely disclosed Dr. Hughes as a person with knowledge of the
facts, a likely witness about his treatment of Harrell, and an expert witness.
NQ 31-1 at 2, 5 & 14-15. The Independence County Defendants did not depose
Dr. Hughes because they were waiting on the Rule 26 expert report that never
came. This is understandable. The Court therefore reopens discovery until
August 9th solely for a deposition of Dr. Hughes, if Defendants want to take
2. The unopposed motion to extend the dispositive-motions deadline
until2 August 2013 is granted. The motion papers can be supplemented with
testimony from Dr. Hughes as the briefing develops if need be. This case is
now first-out for trial on 21 October 2013. To keep things on track for the trial
date, the Court imposes the following condensed briefing schedule for
• Motions due by 2 August 2013
• Responses due by 16 August 2013
• Replies due by 23 August 2013
No extensions absent truly extraordinary circumstances.
* * *
Motion, NQ 31, granted in part and denied in part. Motion, NQ 36,
granted. Briefing schedule imposed to protect the October 2013 first-out trial
United States District Judge
26 July 2013
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?