Bermingham v. City of Clermont, Florida et al

Filing 69

ORDER granting 65 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Leave to Replace Deceased Expert Witness to the extent stated in the Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 8/19/2013. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
KYLE BERMINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:12-cv-37-Oc-37PRL

CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA and
STEPHEN GRAHAM
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Leave to Replace
Deceased Expert Witness. (Doc. 65). Defendants have filed responses in opposition. (Docs. 67
& 68).
Plaintiff seeks leave to replace his deceased expert witness, Ronald G. Lynch, with
another expert in the field of law enforcement practices, Chuck Drago. While Defendants
dispute whether Plaintiff knew or should have known about Mr. Lynch’s death sooner, the Court
will accept Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that he did not learn of Mr. Lynch’s death until
August 12, 2013. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Drago’s expert testimony will be necessary to
prosecute his remaining First Amendment claims. Under these circumstances, the undersigned
finds that Plaintiff has shown the requisite good cause to justify replacing his expert witness at
this late stage in the proceedings.
Accordingly, and upon due consideration, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion (Doc. 65) is
GRANTED to the extent stated below. Plaintiff may substitute Chuck Drago as his expert
witness, limited to the same subject matters upon which Mr. Lynch opined. However, Plaintiff’s

requested time frame for serving a replacem
d
e
g
ment expert r
report is unw
workable in light of exi
n
isting
deadlines Plaintiff shall serve Mr. Drago’s expert repor by the clos of business on Augus 26,
s.
s
M
rt
se
st
2013. If additional time is need for the preparation of his expe report – w
f
ded
ert
which likely will
y
necessita the exten
ate
nsion of othe pretrial de
er
eadlines and continuance of trial – Plaintiff shall
d/or
l
f
file a sep
parate motion
n.
If after revie
f,
ewing Mr. Drago’s repo Defenda
D
ort,
ants determi that they need to de
ine
y
epose
him, they may file a motion wi the Cour Otherwis given the disclosure requiremen of
y
ith
rt.
se,
e
nts
Rule 26, the August 26, 2013 deadline shoul provide D
ld
Defendants a
adequate time to file a m
motion
in limine challenging Mr. Drago’ expert rep
g
’s
port.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Flo
D
O
orida on Aug 19, 201
gust
13.

urnished to:
Copies fu
Counsel of Record
sented Partie
es
Unrepres

-2-