Sasser v. Hobbs
ORDER granting 206 Motion for Disclosure. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on September 1, 2015. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CIVIL NO. 4:00-cv-04036
WENDY KELLEY, Director
Arkansas Department of Corrections
Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion and supporting brief for an expedited
order directing Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Dale Watson, to disclose to counsel for both parties the raw
data underlying his psychological evaluation of Mr. Sasser (Doc. 206) and the Respondent’s
response (Doc. 210) stating that Respondent does not oppose Mr. Sasser’s motion.
Under Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dale Watson, Ph.D., must
disclose a report of his evaluation of Mr. Sasser, including the facts or data considered in the
evaluation. Due to the ethical rules of Dr. Watson’s profession, Dr. Watson believes he may only
disclose the raw data underlying his psychological testing of Petitioner to another psychologist,
rather than to both parties as is required under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner advises in the instant motion that a court order specifically directing Dr. Watson
to disclose his raw data to counsel would resolve the apparent conflict between the expert’s
professional rules and the rules of procedure governing in this case. See also, Taylor v. Erna, 2009
WL 2425839 (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 2009)(discussing cases and ordering disclosures with requested
No protective order has been requested in this case.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for disclosure (Doc. 206) is
GRANTED, and Dr. Dale Watson is directed to disclose the raw data underlying his psychological
testing of Petitioner, Andrew Sasser, to counsel for both parties despite any ethical constraints to
the contrary that may be imposed by his profession.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2015.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?