Tri-State Lodging, Inc. v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Strike 19 MOTION to Strike. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on August 13, 2014. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
TRI-STATE LODGING, INC.

vs.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 4:13-cv-04088

E-Z MART STORES, INC. and
STATE OF ARKANSAS

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court are competing Motions to Strike. ECF Nos. 14, 19. Defendant E-Z Mart
Stores, Inc. (“E-Z Mart”) filed its Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Witness on July 8, 2014. ECF
No. 14. Plaintiff filed its Motion to Strike Defendant’s and Intervenor’s Expert Witnesses on July 25,
2014. ECF No. 19. The respective Parties have filed responses to these Motions. ECF Nos. 18, 20,
23. These Motions are now ripe for consideration.
By way of background, Plaintiff and Defendants agreed in their Rule 26(f) Report that
Plaintiff’s expert disclosures and reports were due on June 2, 2014, and Defendants’ expert disclosures
and reports were due on July 1, 2014. ECF No. 12 at 3. The Parties do not dispute this was their
agreement. However, Judge Hickey did not adopt these agreed upon dates, and entered a Final
Scheduling Order wherein expert disclosures were set for ninety (90) days before August 3, 2014
Discovery Deadline, or by May 5, 2014. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff did not disclose its expert’s name or
supply its expert’s report until June 23, 2014. See ECF No. 24-1. Defendants did not disclose its
expert’s reports until July 1, 2014.

In short, neither Party complied with the Court’s Scheduling

Order in regards expert disclosure.
With Defendant E-Z Mart’s Motion, it seeks to strike Plaintiff’s expert disclosures because
they were twenty-two days past the Parties agreed-upon date of June 1, 2014 for Plaintiff’s disclosures.
1

ECF No. 14. With Plaintiff’s Motion, it seeks to strike Defendants’ disclosures because they were
nearly two months after the Court’s deadline of May 5, 2014.1 ECF No. 19.
The Discovery Deadline in this case was set by the Scheduling Order for August 3, 2014. Both
parties failed to comply with the Scheduling Order in regards to disclosure of experts. However, both
Parties disclosed their experts well in advance of the Discovery Deadline.
prejudice to either party here by the late disclosures.

There has been no

The Court finds both Motions (ECF Nos. 14,

19) should be and are DENIED.
ENTERED this 13th day of August 2014.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

Presumably, because Plaintiff’s expert disclosures were also after this May 5, 2014 date,
Plaintiff is requesting its expert disclosures be struck as well.

2