Griffin et al v. Alamo et al

Filing 306

ORDER denying 255 Motion to Strike. (See Order for specifics.) Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on September 16, 2016. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
VANESSA GRIFFIN, ET AL
v.

PLAINTIFFS
Civil No. 4:14-cv-04065

TONY ALAMO a/k/a BERNIE L. HOFFMAN, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
BEFORE the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness. ECF
No. 255. With this Motion, Defendants seek to strike Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Steve Eichel,
based on their untimely expert disclosure report. The Plaintiffs responded to this Motion on August
10, 2016. ECF No. 266. A hearing was held on this Motion on September 15, 2016. Pursuant to
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2005), United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey
referred this Motion to the undersigned for decision. The Court having reviewed the pleadings and
arguments of counsel finds Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness (ECF No.
255), should be DENIED.
With this Motion, Defendants seek to strike Plaintiffs’ expert witness because his Rule
26 expert disclosure was late. According to Defendants, the deadline to disclose expert witnesses
and to produce expert reports was March 17, 2016. The parties agreed via email to extend the
deadline to May 1, 2016 and then to May 16, 2016. On May 16, 2016, Plaintiffs only produced
a curriculum vitae for Dr. Steve Eichel. On June 7, 2016, Plaintiffs produced a Supplemental
Disclosure of Expert Testimony. ECF 255-9. On August 5, 2016, Plaintiffs produced an expert
report from Dr. Eichel. ECF No. 282-1.
Defendants argue they have been harmed from Plaintiffs’ failure to properly disclose their

expert’s report. Defendants claim they were delayed in preparing for Plaintiffs’ expert’s deposition
and Plaintiffs had the advantage of preparing their expert report after having received the disclosure
pleading and reports from defense experts.
Although it may be true Defendants have suffered some harm by Plaintiffs’ untimely expert
disclosure, any such harm can be rectified with the taking of Dr. Eichel’s deposition which has
been agreed by the parties to take place October 28, 2016. Accordingly, there is no prejudice to
the Defendants.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness (ECF No. 255)
is DENIED. Further, no later than September 29, 2016, Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants (1)
a copy (either paper or electronic) of each of the exhibits used by Dr. Eichel in support of his
opinions, (2) a list of all cases, during the last 4 years, Dr. Eichel has testified at trial or by
deposition, and (3) a statement of compensation to be paid Dr. Eichel.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of September 2016.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2