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)

Download PDF
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

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?