Thornton et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 21

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's request for alternative relief. Discovery is reopened for sixty (60) days from the date of this Order for two limited purposes: (1) the parties are directed to arrange and ca rry out Defendant's deposition of Dr. Ronald Gross, and (2) Defendant is directed to supplement and furnish its expert witness report. The parties are directed to notify the court once these two limited purposes are accomplished. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 02/05/2013. (thb)

Download PDF
IN THE I'NITED STATES DISTRICT COI'RT FOR THE SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTADIVISION LARRY THORNTON and LYNDA GRISBY-THORNTON, r-Ld-LrlL-LrrD, * - 1' , ] - T n A 1 a\7 v. UNITED STATES OF AMER]CA, Defendant . ORDER pending Presentfy for motion Factual In The February Medicaf ThornLon's were Center in Augusta, removed and (Compl. Georqia. tested poJyps and subsequenLly informed nerformecl on Aoril Augusra e m p lo y e e s a c L h e A u g u s t a V e L e r a n s employees VA colon Mr. Upon due consideracion, 13. ) ("Augusta VA") conducted a colonoscopy Thornton cancerous. surgery. Motion BACKGROUND 2 0 0 9 , m e dl c a l Larry Augusta Defendant's Background A. Pfaintiff is Court herebY DENIED. is I. Affalrs the (Doc. no ' Summary Judgment. this before (Id.) An 2A09, 29, (Id, a fever' ran Thornton VA performed initiaf a second surgery and surgery on to 5I 5. ) of Mr. him Lhal they two was scheduled 7.) llq 5' Following May 2, Look on for 2009, and that the potential at Ieakage the of site (Id. abdomlnaf washout. t-he cor^on.l qrrr.rcr\/- placed in -ar. raarri / l rd . v 2009 - 10, \/ \ \rPE.LaL-l\Jr.r array r^cf nr o 9 -l r en of 6.rhi-^c B. Tn nleim ')\ fo the ^ , ! F - r, -u a rlr-h Ltt Pu! a..nart s^Ps! ?Q L basis for copies of pertinent On the July : 20, alleging SecLion rhhr^hri:r6 f^r m^n r6^6/al 6 \, /l:mr^ae second ql surgical nroxim:fclrz r:Arra^r IJ-J^r-'LqLLrJ pain, JUly (Id. surgery. and was ^- Th^rh-^- initial : nrd Jr u surgery Lhird Vr r,he first medical expenses, ( T d . 9 l 9 l1 4 - 1 5 . ) irfs - Gr.rss. medical 2OII, Pla inLiffs Federal Tort medica.I :r (doc. a his curricufum Claims Act ma-Lpractice 2 6 7 5 r e q * - - L e s a clainant to first :- , n da c y p r l o r to brinq.i-nq suit I1 , ex. incfuded the F.On and the Complainr his the against 28 U.S.C. e m p lo y e e s present aqainst and L7, Ex.2,) ( F T C A ), by fS' ('tCV"); vitae a cfaim Plaintif nn'r'nr (See Doc. no. filed no. standardlzed I a*l ar evnlaininc records. administrarive Plaintiffs claim: Gross's an Affairs 2675.1 s1'r.iar\r. Dr. nresented Veterans S rl rim claim; Defendant under the 2611,-2680 , rna.i his administrative their Q^nAl-l nr L, of U.S.C, 1 - , ^ r - tn s Y r a :. ! / form; He was norfnrmcd Plairr 20-n- Denartment in followinq 10-11. ) a he History L !r,rv! ry and r'li cnhr :-.1 losc consortium. senrember u irrcnrIrz After worsened damages. such as physical Procedural !rr \/A thaL alfege wclc wide ^',^,,ct-: 2 aL 8.) an (CompI. ${ two months after Plaintiffs 12,) Ex. coma and ultjmately Th^ over 17, perform and condition Thornton'S complications. induced an operation Doc. no. 91 8; Mr. addiriona I suffered initial the of cLaim Unlted SS the to the States from affidavit for (Doc. VA. Augusta (comp]., cfaim (comp.L., exs, records O n N o v e m b e r 1 1, issued jffs 20L2, as the last for !v! 2 A 1 1, 20L2. (Doc. deadllne of Unired the of fast anril expert no. However, close report (Doc. no. 9.) discovery of reporLl Lo June deadline Pfaintiffs' remained in 9, an expert discovery. Defendant's 2072, Judge March 10, 201'2, as the extended the March 10, basis St.aLes lvlagistrate ,.,i-hacc close 11, ) and the 2-19) . order and sworn as we.L1 as Mr. Thornton's Defendant Lo lurnish day for Revised Scheduling 1,6, 2012, €X. 1), a attached opinions €..r^icL f^ 2A12, as the and May 2, his which set Order, a Schedufing plai-f r - jy ar r uu Pfaintiffs 1. ) Gross explaining Dr. Plaintiffs' medica] no. full- to May 24, reporL expert force A and effect. (rd. ) 8, On February fi rst expert 20L2, i n r e r r o c a To r i e c e r d !vYsLv!rvv whi,ch afso disclosures r-laarr v r::ll the opinions erpert ,.<,dA-a.l as hw .lF an and treir Defendant's Gross as their filed initial, as Gross their requested "the name, address, and telephone you your kno!.ifedge, information or be]lef, $'' l-.6ec ey6o.r Dr. Dr. identifled clearfy 2 The elqhth interrogatory number of each person who to idertified to 20, 20L2, Plaintiffs On February witness.2 responded Pl-aintiffs >- bases. a^n,-'i r:r.c<' -rrFl " as (Doc. no. 17. o:se s€€ n weII Ex. aS,he srtbsLance 4 S B. ) AIIidaviL oI of Plaintiffs Same WiEh (Id,) The record does not show infornation," attached CV and identifying interrogat.ory were attached to Plaintiffs' or CV that Dr, Gross's affidavit (See Doc. no, 1?, trx. 4. ) was previ ols-Ly Dr, Grossts affidav'f responses, but noLh-Lnq in rhe record shows aLLached to !ne Compla'nc (compL/ ex. I), L h a t D r . C r o s s ' s C V w a s a L L a c h e d t o t h e C o m p l a ln L ( q = c o m p . , e x s . 1 - 1 9 ) . I dnnrrmoni -, / r.ai ni-i aL f_ l - f\ L7 Jl i " 6 . i J e f Fc n- ^s .ii.l noj- Grnqq'q f n r m' a ' q tl- ]l \ / t hnr^'orror rFnr\r- F'.nFrr_ hr,, ^L f u-rr i r>rr r rrrn d Varr-h iha l0- i ef\/ f ho 2012 deadline. On - .d.r'ren- e x r l e r! f c^vE L disclosrtre rn.\\req f .\ Tn (Doc. 26. rFooFn in to opposition q.,r- regardi-:rg their expert, In 13, Dr. f)r. this While i,,nnmarr J L.\-r9 r.rsr r - t case rha - nont- 7. ) On June 28, statemenL of (Doc. nos. 2, iCS OWn 20L2, material 16, I1 .) in'ornation 2012, Defendant is r> DI SCUSSION to address before l i --,ra is the Court is whether enLi Lfed lhe fourch oisclosure, of Ronafd Gross, stated: "See Affidavit (Doc. no. 1'7, Ey^.3 n 4.) n pLalntiffs amend (Doc. no. 20. ) matter first CiviI Of Defendant c'rnn'arcnl-al II The RUIe and on July Gross.a eal- alternative, motion. derl to Fedefal and brief far GfOSS 1 at Ex, nrorri in the r'lanosa Defendant's Pla.i n-iffc brjet. a reply filed f . motion failed fo r-.1 13.) response a filed r .vltn ri 9 r r u r n no. (Doc. no. report, a Plaintiffs rcr"en- s cii sr-nvcrrr !Lvyrrr Plaintiffs facts lcrrri filed Defendant r-on-cndi nr-r fha' Procedure expert 2A12, 5, June decislonaf on Dr. a mot.ron D u"u'ra ! y Gross may "D.isclosure M. D. , filed FxperE of Lrlth the T e s c i m o n y ," CompLai:rt. " administrative c1aim, which documents from their attached The attached cV sets at IO-28,) included Dr. Gross's CV, (Doc. no. 17, Ez,2 in detail, as well as a List of publications fonth Dr. cross's qualifications (See id.) Plaintiffs afso expfained that produced by Dr. cross since 1979. as an experL witness '1 El-e prev'ous four years. Dr. Cross had not tesLified (Doc. no. 16 at 2 n.1.) sent an AdditionalLy, on June 2I, 2412, P.Iaintiffs Lo Defenoanc wh-ch provioeo a sLacenent o- Dr. Cross's colpensaL.ron -Ln ema-L(Doc. no. 2A, Ev'. 2.) this matter. an F).neri r-l a I n guv' law5 n r nv:^ r ' i m aq- L s e rLL f cqa r L s e v uJr because axne.t !^y!! *5 4360618. at wheLher v. Ga. Sept. proximate omitted) 808 (11th Cir. D qrLuLLo y ! exc.Iuded for lay 2006)). -...jrrme-jI uvvrLLrrrL failure the Lo address the Rufe 26 inquiry Of medigal - -- -amony 1-ea1- professiona.L n*e oenerallv ken Che No. 2:07-CV-044, for aVelage 2008 WL ("In Georqia' medical care was performed 'f ho nl -ri nl i ff the law ln mrrqr and rmay nor cause, re.Iy on his avoid summary judgment. '" Suggs v. U.S., 199 Fed. Appx' Because resolution donan.]c a to opinions (quoting estabfish 2008) 24, Lo estabfish r-he U.S., manner. and is ZWrren to affeged the r.1Ai,-n.r skillful own staremenrs See in order evidence i1i117rz F;nfrrftq that ordinarily (citation n est:bIish Avnarl- a presumption recognizes tesrimony (S.D. rhe hacause ro actiOnS. ("In nf P-a'nriffs' cr^q< nr nlrinFiff Efuellen accord layperson."); nr:r-l- jCe (2003) ],.^'.,1a.lda L of -as-inonrz aynart ral 500 of f l_e r-:rceal qPnec r a fr! 4 s s I i z o r l - a J ur t-ho nf i Tonv n-annndc-:nr-c 3 question the n sY i r ru r r La r r l ! ! YrE rc n s - a mo.li-e1 498, ^ f ^ a^ci Lhr o l r , -^r-----i^^ marpractfce fcr i.' bv !_l fesf -orrrri -oq ov er n! s 4 r J l l r r e 4a Y r v rziahilifrz fhq case. exne-- Thompson, 216 Ga. n!r ovx i m ra q eL s ^ tr t r P an chis fl^e t .-a,ts^f ion y! v. 'non q reqf Gve o r o it u a ur ! Y 'n wirnasq nr comply r.rl^atha- with of Defendant's Dla:niiFFe, Rule 26, che 804, motion F5lnart Court iS wj 1l first. "Ar action oro*ghc u'tder Lhe f'TCA is governed by Lhe faw oI Lhe sLaLe BoaLWr-LghL . U.S./ No. 2:08v where Ehe neqLigenL acr o- on'ssion occLrrred." Stone v. cv-030, 2009 wL 3151156' at *4 (s.D. Ga' Sept. 29, 2AA9) (citing clalm stems from 2004)). As Plaintiffs' U,S., 3?3 F.3d 1129, 1130 (11th cir. Lhe law of Georq-a occurred in A*gusEa, Georgia, evenLs wnich allegedly ooverns this action, A. Eederal LJ L iA< nt r^ r-ri^l - F Inv.! - f e , ! witness is are -avnart-' -haea court the h !!u . ri r r^ ] , , u l in i , ,^ ' ^ 9 nnrninr. anrl or F| lro L rr - L '6lt\ + --, r r d,y /2i -ha hrr sione.l ,,--^ l-.^ /q\ reqU_Lf eS iane aL R. Eed. far Lhe times Civ. rhd e di nf provide expert such a report "A party and P. rv fi nvl : r iq L r L r r Y z I nr Lhe concenLs of Rufe 26(a) (2) (B) (i)-(vi). -rr c/^ osures wrt',]ass--i' empfoyed to specjalfy The required case," orders. " c:nat- glrvqrrrr --nren:re.l the delineated t requi -es 26ia) 12) lA) , . r L ,' r ^ - -rw cJ ,anrr J the each experL wicness "must be accompanied by a one reLajned test-lmony in Rule af governs 26la) 12) Procedure irlenrirrr ,3vner of L Expert evidence. rho n-pcFnf thaL disclosure r"'-i t-l-on Civif experr diQ/-lnea +n Plaintiffs' of Rufe of disclosure ^irf Po, of Exclusion in Lhe sequence f:i _tr'lcq I i nn fo rnat 37 (c) Rule 26(a) 12) lD) . qr-ot,orrr must make :rd arl-arq mele Fxnerf discLosures. it Here, i,,lcrj- if rz tuLrrLrLy be disputed cannot l -L F i r of atinFri- 26(a) (2) (A) when they witness in Defendant's is also 6 soo ' their clearly initlaf inrerrogatories.5 undj spuEed that .rrrra aoiF,s 2-r :.^ that w'rness Plaintiffs '".I identified SaLiSf Dr. disc.Iosures This Plaintiffs .^--acn.-.li-.' disclosed action of the Rufe Gross as an expert and disclosure responses was timefy.t were requj red to provide to IL an -ax-. respo-rses rhar: idcnLilied and inLerrogaLory discfosLres .fhe init'al in February 2072, pri or !o che experL ujere provided Gross as Pfa-nLi-fs' Dr. P. the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. imposed oy 2072 deadLine 1C, March 'lhese writ'ng, signed, and were a.Iso "idisc.Losures 26\a) 12) (A), (D) . by Ru-e 2((a\ (4\ ' as required served" F."r\art 'nr renorf 6^t- ^ c m n l! vn r ry a vr . l L lra^ fo rrtLP | inn nJ h,rl J c i rL-vi ra nr r ur r - j -F s - i m o n \ / Dr. Rufe 26(a) (2) (B), under mnqr tre ;n (2) and the qI nue c : ^l r r f. ' J / u ar (1) issues: effect to whether Defendant any viofation oI y Therefofe, caSe. reporL expert Gross's he because r : o n q i c l e L -e u r !d the two add-ress on.Iy sect ions furnished PfaintiEfs :nr_l evna-l 26(a) (2) (B) Rule under Gross nro,ri cle following the fr, of Ru]e 26 (a) under Rule 37 (c) . 7. RuIe 26(a) (2) (B): ^n a . l r n p! r - \ , r ii r a q q uAIJr (Doc. Ex. 13, no. Complaint (compl ., referenced Dr. (id., disclosures The Courr in ex. rejecls the -he Dr. r , r . rI r . r - i l / v - L - L -rL l L t d counsel .r,1- ^^^I lll-LgPsLrr in Decatur. (1) in Gross as part of occasions: from Dr. l'7, f imcl\/ (2) on JuIy 20, ex.2); axnFrl- affidavit :o the they February 8. 2012, in response to Defendant's 4); ex. and (4) on affidavit in concention GroSS's Pfainti ffs' claim that satisfres administrative fL r r6 h E rharr 20' February thei-r initial 3) . administrative -cnrri reronl- I1 , 26 (a) (2) (B) . on affidavit (doc no. t-hcrr rcf crcnr-6d (3) 1); Gross's interrogatories )a1) ex. c^narate no' furnish Ru]e wirh ""r Gross' s Dr. attached thev (doc. claim administrati-ve timefy rh^r a fetter included to i f f c fnrr- September 2010, they 2 0 1 L, Dl>in 1. ) ^r" . ) F l : n F r u r n r . v - ] r 's-sa ^ ,vuu Ir! their nornnl i es rhar rAn/-\rt faifed PLaintiffs Defendant contends that qrr RePoLt Requireg.ent Eryert f ls P o r l u 6nF marj- Georgia,' claim .lf \/Ff they the mauerials 6r'r-q were Af rei not any materiaf expert report were sent rq, rcrri6n3,[ < served to upon Defendant's S. (Id., Karnik. the that which imposed by the n^-hinn provided ro fFal- Plei-fi di ennrrarrr filed (doc, Order a-oument responses no. There is 9). were materials 2412. chac an -a'a-ennar'l The initial Lhe constitute m 'e r e l - - r z '' -J dnr-rrmcnl-q on June 28, March 10' to shows 2012 deadfine adniniscracive Ffc' and Sanjay case only March 10, prior counsef this were the fhp interrogatory and iha<a expert Dr ' Gr^^^t . affidavil wilf. The Court Crnce, qLowino of materlafs Schedulinq reiecrs disclosures Shannon H. Statkus was wefl--after Delendant's al.-rrrrr also . The record cfaim Court's -onn-rr nn r6h^rl- 2.) Ex. case, administrative (id.), 20L2, this in counsef c ^ F F.i awnarl- | Becker and Green, P.C. , vrhe.ha- Lr19 \ U U t L . l r - 1. , 1I eX. eyrrFrr cnmnl :l to information which r.'i l-h iac Dr il"o LLC v. See oES Fitef' at-i.lavif to extent Epstein, (11th Cir. 549 F.3d 1344, 1362-63 sufficient contained /^^hh1 Rule 26(a) (2) (B) . provrs aons of / c n rn e i df au s r r r ri! \ uu rr ,J -,..1 ct.LI-L(ldv-L the consider however, j-^ l-:.ha.l 2008) -n'r'nLainL with comply Rule 25 (a) (2) (e) ) . a. Formal As to the (a) (4), and "prepared 3 a,1-^-:i-+ forma.I requirements Dr. Cross's and signed" Defendant lap^a sa Requirenents attacks expert rav the of incLusion /a.'rli Plai--ir'c rrafacci^^:l was affidavit m:lrra.Fi-a Dr, ra'l o L affidavit g^Pc d^a< *"-" ^^r :hnl\7 rh in -'4:r^-,1- I Defendant is S 9-11-9.1, an expert affidavit to be '"i' writing"' "in upon Defendant. s G r : o s s 's q 26(a) (2)(B) Rule by Dr. Gross, and "served" court pursuant to o,C.G.A, federal O.C.c.A, S 9-11-9,1. which requires -^-^r.inr imposed by the in correct lhat filed liith a fa.lar^l .li\rcrei t\7 ( S e e C o m p l. , was both c a h a' u ]vrsr+' l . Doc. no. Doc. no. and served i ra 4 rr Y JU' I; Ex. nr^arl < Dr. Plaintiffs filed, raar|i Since 3 ) 'tco rarnanf Gross's also furnish" affidavit satisfied the the report 9. ) b. Timeliness As be d.isclosures Gross's March Order's to quafify the - jn - of Procedure qr-hc'-lrrli no the judge's n 'ned !i !f r r y r( v their ('..,|r-t s expert rnr Scheduling Plalntiffs to furnish an was therefore timely. aL contained sufficient information to '..--: n n d i ' i e e l or ^+ i l r z v r however, in 5iLUw Orclcr che r vn ! -n Le g\Julr form Var.L violared 16(b) (4) f o- riLvs4!+!v e l - a r " l In L i , - LU plainciffs Rule 16(b) . Sr-he'lrr'li no report, ^, y u,-rIh ^ r-- A l j - u u Jv for ' har nar- Here, consent." d ! r,LL-rcrv-lL h:rra "ma.u he order u!u!! f h.a rhe affidavit it in ,ar.nraq JLIIUUJ-!'i9 Dr. report. as an experl Civi.L orders, Court was before DF. Gross's that the expert that \^/ith the Complainc and served which 2011' Dcf c-r.lan' Rufe that was fjled JuIy extent requirement times the 2AL2 deadfine 10, 6vna-t- rFn.\rleast made at affidavir experr Defendant upon 26 (a) (2) (D)'s Rufe to provides -r'rnrJ carrso Pfaintiffs buu of i n -r Federal tha: :n.l do not raLher Gross's ?n1' A. m-rrii f 1/ wiLh seek to contend Dr. lL rL a j - rc pla a that expert intif Crn h q q lur r. f J lr a. f S t i nn rrv 4I F, Supp. 2d 1358, 1362 (N.D. Ga. 1999); Boone see Baird v. celis, cases. Even though the v. Knight, 131 F.R.D. 609, 612 (S.D. Ga. 1990) (Alaino. J'). that does not Geo-gia pLead-ng reouirenenL dces not apply in Iederal coirr, tuheLher dn experE affidavit courL fro* corsioering a lede-al res!ricL Ru e 26 (a) :2) {B) experL .report the com[lainE saLislies a aLLached !o 'n r ' - - i ->-! - ' u L!d-! ! y I tou I q lederal colrrL. See OFS raorliremenr which is aPvr |u fitel , 519 F.3d at compLaint contained 1362-63 sufficient (consrdering informat.ion tlheLher experL aIIidaviL aEtached RuLe 26)' to comply with ro be r-^r'i^--^.] -LrLP-r r \-a hThar l r-s\!^ - 6 . l s Lsu not some but contalns consequences under In f360-63. shorc, fal I nui nn RuIe canf the Circuit 37(c) (1). Lhe question has of not thaf by evaluated the the 5 49 F. 3d at sufficiency here regards Dr' 26(a) (2) (B) Rufe required raLher See OFS Fite-I , content is ,rf f iclav jI exnerl- information Eleventh 20L2 wiI). modification :- nrn\/ides of the under sufficient \/ Whether the than modification. is nF-f all rule, report expert F March 10, to 16 (b) (4) Rufe and timefy considered prior submitted information onfy Order, is Gross's affidavit in discussed the i nn c. Content 26 la) (2) (B\ , Rufe to Accordingr Requirements an avnarl- r6n.\11- mrr c]- conta.in the f ollowing: l Li/ I \ a st af anArl- r:omnl efe uv,L,IJ o nf - r- nn'r'npg WitnesS the will express and the basj-s and reasons for them; (ii) the facLS or data considered by Lhe witness in forming (iii) wiff be used to that exhibits any them; (iv) witness's the them; or support summarize n , ra l iaf r ne r i n r c qu :f if :o inz^lrrdinn rn ar--hn-ad i l^a a n- r o - - ' -r ( r u S r -v lict -LU nf n'hlir-:j- all a \ v / ysoLr, .Iist inn< of alL other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the tria.I or by an expert at as testified witness a statement of the compensation and (vi) deposition; Lra nairl !L }Jurv fL v n R. Fed. discussed Civ. in q Grnqq's Thornton's nni j-aeiimn.r,, an.l lhe P. 26(a) (2) (B) (i)- (vi) . in Uhe Each CaSe. subsection turn. Subsectlon oyr\Fr-, el-|drr fr- (i) n i ons - j-LrFF-na.rF medicaL requires as weII affidavit records as ^ -.\rrnl their bases states and is 10 aj-a that familiar st^f6nenl Of and reasoning. he wiLh rev.iewed the Dr. Mr. Lhe procedures patients manv with Ex. 1 c m L L P n y r a a co ETnl vr €E f .\f i-htr r::re whiIer (Id. 9l 4.) ----*^-^^i^ LUtll\Js surgery ,,-- ^^^r'l of .a soiled fater I L . n\ j.rr- l l- h \ / Fr r rc-r) i nenl- t he h oJsJn u t a I v I r iur s l ^ u\ :/1Je (Id. WhiIe an ideal insrances of c^A c^^nhrre .raaL "-"% 11 ?qq?q alfidavit tL-va ri h v ua report v2 $urnafrrl rv!!u++j delivers the 6f c ' rdarieS. rhc initial <utl r h Y u l . - L r Juqa rr r ttFnt Lhe lsecondl inltlaf failure was reanastomosis the was than ideal cond.itions or and closure, room at (Id. ) es :nrlald the (b) landl operating sttr.reri Dr. .Least 24 Gross further Mr. CaUSed 1 p - 6v r n! s e-4 er-r e t i n n c !! v! a v would provide Cross's alleged-Iy rendicion a "brief r.r rF^l- i - ThornLOn'S an,'l .rrrrent ql 5. ) Dr. opinionsr "(a) ileosotomy to mrlIinlc , canan.l that less an return < r^-l that abdomen under ^ ^ i h i ^rh f r wrr wPf L -lva e r r iLn n aud Y a second washout. " after disabilities. u rl in care subsequent that f rAh^rt- arizc have been de-Layed by and stapling, !!uv! -cf fi treated Thornton's, : PPtf : on n l i ^ s fo' l o and repair investigate standard and should t^iT rrrc..rrl to ncrformer'l in his . v n r v !i v^ror Gross found Dr. !r lJvv!r_! . . ovn ri r sn e s v t J c -ho-nron's Vr Mr. to tLa LrrE SpecificaIly, the hours Cra<<, personallv has and anasromoLic leak/disruprion; necrosis below nr Ar -' L n u '9 u-r^ -a Ir! l 5 he simllar conditions n e r f o -rvmri' n-. r ! - r u thaL states qfl 2-3. ) ( C o m p f ., dllcts he Indeed, Derformed. more detailed poi nts affidavit negfigent conduct primari I y of LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., No. trl^ Anr 21 2OOq\ /M n I rr i n^.lF.rrr^f grearer c/'l deLai] 11 Tndeed than out and surely consist lingl the bases for I egal specific goes beyond conclusions. " 3:01 -cv-941 , 1f i ndi I)r expert {lrnqqt nrr q reporc 2049 cvncrf F).nprf filed hv De'er.la1f -€€i.l-,,i crrr-LLrdv L c;(IJsr allow rh's ir t rL- - - r r-^ \u. wl rrd - r nnnnqrrr Ithe (11th Cir. n 2 n w ua u \ \!rrrvfr-Y (ii) Subsection of o-r data facts his or her opinions, ( C o m P l .' expertise. (Id. , Exs. No. (" [B]revity 2012) of invafjdaLion -^--l u \ J r r u t u o r t! q - r \ r u y l iL-rhEc l L >cl-,d ^ I a Ls I rel ^ - l - , r l - 'i - afone and unadorned. " r..l CfOSS- 1303, 1,323 we].L as u ri t h rhe the . does i < not i -:nf hFrF e-F n-esented Tha olnri v , . r ir vn tn q r t r finds (quotations and (S.D. resu.It tharaf and cjtaLions Ga. in and affidaviL, GroSS/S Klosinsk i, Sept. Ta-l- c 25, automatic a d m o n jL i o n I ha alonreirle 17, per:tinent Dr. that See AbdulLa v. 1.1a.^rrca ^rF the he that own training r-^nDlaint *5 formi ng from April Further, corrrt (ii) his in states dating of disclosure wirness and che preceding report, ied Of requires records WL 44291'19, at afone nyn' ,i ' ! v r :r n n s n r v e x o e r !r l L !^y! a II2l affidavit tlfl L-2.) qh.)rj-- 2OI2 1:10-CV-159, 1 subsection satisfied affidavit f i ni rrr 552 F.3d expert Gross's as .i I o.l In 2-L9.) Dr. the medical Ex. were records medicaL by 2009, Novembe.r 5' to 2009, Here, Thornton's on Mr, relied 26(a) (2)(B) Rule consjdered the enoni rah DrummondCo., Dr. Gross's ^ L - . e ' 6 r \ , r ir r E-: ^ .1 w l Jtr h i { in.]ihd / fnr nrpnFra ro Romero v. Cf, "errf f i r-i anr nrnrri,,lod nar-vl VI,IJvJlrIYF,q!9jl examinatlon, " rr j Court f i-nds that The maLter,q rrn.n his nnininns n-a -.\j- against WhiCh in a n-Fcented omitred)). o on May 23, 2A12, Defendanc frled Lhe expert :eporE of D-. Vendie d. -TI. (Doc. no. -1. ) Tne expert oo'nio'l conra,ined in L:re repo-rL reads Hooks, as foffows: "ArLer Ehorough Iev-ew of the VA l4edical Records oI Mr. Larry No Thornton, I fee.L that the standard of care was met in this case." (Id') further explanation of Dr. Hooks's opinion was provided L2 c r r h < a / ^ l -i ^ n ran^'. !rPv! liii\ -..nn-ai. L JuPPv! srnnorl Ihe ra.^rls Rrrla Arr\/ FvFil^if wFrF ' c , exnerl ^hi 26lal s ni nnc and jt lRi will. ircq used to tha readily evntrr SummaIiZe of 'n-dical pynarl aFf'davit be inferred -hose that subsection was to the This wou.Ld be used as exhiblts. records rhtr r'6rl-ir6rf flrcss'q nr. could r6.y be HF-F F'^"r.qrdF 2-I9), l?l 1-haf vurrrrvtrr nrovr.lad (compl. I exs. medicaf -f satisfied. (iv) Subsecrion q rritneqs, :rrl-hnra^ i r affidavir states l^n'rrc rt^a I ha n vno < i t P r nrorri j- en nrrq \/e: $qr1yd6.n -f l -vr: n r a e lnr r irn r f i r g r , 1 E - L r , J - .nL al.-L M A .. ' .1n does not afso has June 28, Dr. response (Doc. I1 , Dr. quafifications id.) the cross's 1 of 'fhiq --LLe ) t Complaint the motion at 10-28 . ) The CV, which sufficiently and a list providing of Dr. Gross's 13 -r^-^ WhiIe and the no found of the the Court CV record Defendant unti.L claim summary iudgment. administrative publications his cf .atemen.r administrative for of Center (id.), to who Medical review provided fifed avnarf DiviSiOn qualifjcaLions. CV was not 2 the Baystate The Court's Lo Defendant's Ex. Of course, 1ql Puuffuq Crn<<'q CV was attached 1-19). Gross's package in included to exs. at his when Plaintiffs 2012, no. his exh.ibit (see id., that reveals that states exam.ined each attached Fr. estabLjsh sufficiently affidavit / .v - m.n ! -\ /1 .l -'Lri^-tions I icensed physician r^\ief Trauma and Emergency Med-ical Services i-Lr- nr rq anri conLajn alt a practicing, Lhat he is Lr report expert iL -^ !rf - l r uru. flri- r o 9 ourur- a l i f i c a f i n n s . Y J the requires set since credentiafs forth 1979. claim his (See on June 28, (v) Subsection ic, .:onfain rcnort tA<ti f i a.'l ^.vP s^ , !f s \ ^ u .ac e tyr n t r !r rg r^ / -LllI5 :n w1rress ^-,-r ^.ntains sent Plaintiffs no f .rrr rhe nrewi o rs the after rwo wltness nr Cr^-^'^ lrpArq had not (Doc. June 28, 2012, testlfied as no. 15 aL of Dr. statement Gross's the an 2 n.1.) On to ,lune 27, Defendant which provided (Doc. no. matter. March Order's Dr. 10, not 20L2, Gross's 20, Ex.2.) As was made deadfine and disc-Iosure Lhis subsections, expert' s does affidavit compensation. of Schedul-ing 2AL2 Rule 26(a) (2) (D) . viofated therefore a case. r . n m n c n s a f io n s c h e d r r l e i - n t h i s wi fL the which r r n! r r " iumi o. l r r Jrr . r / requires an emaif in On \/aarq the expert list. such n:clr4J a a I ev rhe r.\trr n,ast Gross (vi) in f he Dr. statement a March 10' Order's requires cases that ,w, o J -^ Subsection other afl r'lrrri no i".1 tLo C i l r - r L d l i c l L - LL r t r - contain of F1.rlari- exnl a i ned comnensati on Ru-Le 26 la) 12) lB) of a fist 5rri ^-r,i + P l e i nf i ffs Scheduling the and Rule 26(a) (2) (D) . 2012 deadline rFL.r^ pursuanL to was untimely 2012, d. Conclusion To surnmarize, with complied 26 (a) (2) (B) . subsections was untimely cannot cattrt-, oood Yvvu c carrse eahodrrl i n. r r . Y be rrndar n -rqd- c r u ! expert Gross's compliance in violation overlooked Rrr'lo :rrl -A fn \r-nmnl aA and remaining of Rule Lhree Rule 26(a) (2)(D) . because r')sri'v i:nr-o (iii) the with of substantially affldavlt (ii), (i), subsections However, untimeliness q rh o rw n rr vw r Dr, Pfaintiffs have rodi'ir-ario* r," l- l" l- ha This r 6c'9- ;rr' - i | of not the 1s6r r r^c^ lF ^ r ' r LJ of Rute 26 is aspirational noL merely ," 549 F.3d at OFS Fitef, 1363. 2, RuTe 37(c) (7) : Effect . comprises only the is inquiry jnformaLion provide (e), or 26(a) Eed. additlon or nf ^i- t'6r 6st^bl v. t-hat Ford Motor (quoting (N.D. ca. rather, harmless, (See Doc. no. a violation Procter of Rule & Gambfe Mfg. 37 (c) (1) justified argue 16 at substantialJ-y party. nondisclosing do thaL 824 82I , (llth "' Cir. E.R.D. 6 8 1, 691 contend that its 233 not burden "'The was substantially any non-compliance was 5-6.) have broad 26 (a) (2) Co., was disclose 26 (a) (2) Ru]e is or may the Inc., Plaintiffs a court the Pf-zer, or at a hearing, Id. on information "In sanction, to fails (emphasis added) . 318 Fed. Appx. Plainciffs courts use that substantially this with juscified; District v. Here, compliance untimely to of by Rule a wicness as required faifure Co., Leathers 2006) ) when "a party on a mot.ion, at rests half as an enforcement SancLionS a Rule 26 violated The other that allowed P. of hern-ess 2A09J not Id. operates states was Civ. annron-iace ir Mitchefl R. instead i sh i no -.,<-iriori is faifure the harmfess. " i lrnncc It evidence supply un-less to which idenr-fy or party the to or witness triat, 37(c) (1), Rule Ia parcy] inquiry." the Rule 26\a) 12). mechanism for to half Nor:-CoryTiance that decermining "Neverlheless, of discretion is 700 F. 15 to determine harmfess. Supp. 2d I3I2, whether Silverstein I32A v. (S.D. Ga. " I TI n 2OO9) exerci si no [Ru]-e 26 viofationl whether a a Rule 37(c) (1) arri.la^ Frz rha L that +h^ pa rty *6 f- hrc . e q v r L J urlr rl nrr i the surprise; (3 ) the the .u7a evidence Two Men and a Truck, d-lscussed in -- qF triaf; woul-d disrupt shoul-d be court of f ered; the is Each faccor 1l) determine purposes of for a district i^rould be cure (quoting to . harmfess is f:crors: evidence of importance discretion ^,,idence to the affowing broad analysis, excfusion f a l l-n w i- n o* , . e . - ..r.^- cr9ctrrr> at i ts (2) fL rl -' v F -v Lhe to whi ch (4) Iandl Ly of ability extent Abdulla, r^-"' Par the 2 o ) , 2 w L 4 4 2 9 L 19 , atj *2). 2008 WL 5235115, turn. a. Surprise ,tl-,a I rIE "this is about an identified and prior 4) , once and cur l rrnt |J i! c aJ U r J not l.) Dr. witness. " Gross as had filed 5q9 Lheir March 10, the Defendant Plaintiffs is maroinal expert Lo ar ex. i-nformation -1 ^.r -r.l TIdIITLI!ID lJbJ. (doc. D.r. Gross's (compl., OFS Fit eI, in provide witness 2012 deadline access suit t . JO As - ro comp.Lete failure a case of expert to ncf cnrj^nl 1) . during no. €€^ discovery 17, exs. 3- experc affidavic This affidavlt t0 There 1s also a fifth factor: "the nondisclosing par:ty's expfana:ron Abdulla, 2072 VIL 4429719, aL *6 to discfose the evidence." for .its failure Inc. v. Res. & ConmerciaL Transp. Co., {quoting Two Men and a Truck Int'f/ Thls N o . 4 : 0 8 - C V - 0 6 1, 2 A 0 8 W L 5 2 3 5 1 1 5 , a t * 2 ( N . D . F l a . O c t . 2 4 , 2 O A B J ) . tras pertains !'rhether a RuIe 26 viol-ation onLy to however/ factor, r . r , r l ^ F - l ^ p -! w a s h a r m l e s s . >- t,r ir s il ed. ac --..s--l i Tn-is laclor have not argued substantial here because Plaintiffs inapplicabLe is therefore justification has justification. The Court notes that while no substantiaf y no ev-dence of ti'll'ul ron-compliance or bad been shown, there is absolute - would it existed evidence !.rhich - if on the parL of P.Laintiffs, faith See OFS Fitel/ 549 F.3d at 1365; Vaughn v' \..rarrant exclusion of the expert. U.S., 542 F. supp. 2d I33I, 1337 (S'D. Ga. 2008) . -LO arrf{:i-ionl- l\/ a^.I !J zun lr r u vi ^ L - 4 ]/ rrrr:l if ir-:r jr olnJq _ v r l l-a n-arr:n rq I'r or jed to imporranr cro ss-examinat ion see rrLdll : lso ^^^^-in^ OppO:'-LI19 'imna.f s ulona<i l- inn c o n t -a i n e d the in rrn l i ka Fvnerf the report d4i r un ,l v oc- ir - v c f n v close u!!) f ^ f ha the '3 1362; (" If]urnishing ron/! \ r e y J _L r l - and al iS deposition 549 F.3d at qrrrnr: dcnnqe : d rvz!o v e c - ! qu !r erl v the COndUCt : nL: q o' lr Reese v. "In]o discovery) ; of i n be q Her:bert, report Sommers v. L1 .r v! r s affidavit 549 See F.3d C raaV aC 1r woefully considered *2-3 have (excfuding expert sta Lements t'wirhout far-j- rrAl hasis" l L .m. nr Ld^D : ^ e t I " ^ \ I D 521 E.3d 1253, 7264-65 (LLth of excfusion expert aL harm. o.r cou.Id Cnodhrre conclusory r c ij J - J G-nqq' G-rOSS. ran.\rt rr qa Def endant Dr cannot consis Led nr ' L 'I ^ r ^ 20A9 WL 1139575' (affirming but ^ !yJ!- ar.na r r- nedLa trl lt r r 9 n n u r ! rri see also 2008) of some for for OFS F r -ot in a ffidavit See inadequare. identified imoosed . nf,1-malion at r.^-ari no finds alro v!lvq! Anr.i added) ); nrcn:re WhiCh rF r rve i-i.ladrr^16 -!rroucAJoLc tn affidavit D r e D a r i n r.r r t Y rrr G-nqq' q Cir. Court meani nof r'' rrti I ize.l where i -rr :hrl expert the 1 36 3 '.^^r''ll.' wuclurry in "\ However, Unlike ct j fs nnon -\/na 2009 WL 1139575, .r-L wILIr h5yl-'l PdlLyl hFeF< Gross's .esFs nrohah'v OFS Fitef, an expert. Goorlhvs creek/ r Dr. and preparing acrorneys of inn. Tl-r c Defendant. upon provide exnerf an rhFi (See id.) nnnnerca- aS nl n4ir rr r v^r nvq v r r r , ! time.Ly rr'rirnr^q nlbl eynerl- on. to },uvrr!uLlvrrJt "ae*if inconvenience considered q Cr^qq, fai lure ffs' Pfaintj nr and data he .relied and the faccs quqr!!ruoL na.] experL where was provided" Hall/ No, expert prior 4 : a B - C V 2 5 1, to was the 2010 WL 3453608, at *3 rE Pn r L r r f ! a v! " l e vr ll l Ls the " f aai rl r L nrrr nar F v n c r !f r^rhara -) L wifneqq al^ \ r'r. e. c ^I,E P!vPs! nynyn n-q ,i Y n a v vJ r a.v of lqq?\ ran.rt .- n -a' - y rf P lwas' leSS 174 F.R.D. '\f:i'rrrc -n httr irrifalino ^1 wd> nttr:h Alabama, i-rFl {Findino where expert nnininrc h's Chapple v. he relies"); 'V ?nn-n1 =\/ luurrtr!i (excluding 1,2010) Ga. Sept. r.lFn-i tLc r v on which data 6qq (S.D. *^"tFrA "arrIess" sg r h ve L : f J ' vJi er gc-rL!q- nrOvjde maTf eI. Of iS tO expert' s expected Lestimony) . Tho narmi PErrL.-LL for l-ra r r r u sd ta !rrlrrYz i r o uIn ! y nnnn<i L nrorri f he by Gross's experc n u -rP v Jcr, q e r rn l P encl r here affidavi wc-l >^ w abil ity evidence woufd "rhe crr"nrise cou-Ld have been drir v v v n! n r r o r v e! J u r f be to \r 2d at and h.1- rnm an fing expert] | s [the Dr. report. ") served to ir^a t.'Tl^a expert ^e !320; an experL n^- o[ wiIl there Supp. t-j nrartrra Lhjs underlying Defendant Cure SurPlise Rufe 37(c) (1) party agaj nsL - .--a6< here, Defendant '.,if h P- rinriffS more amicably r.\1-r c im^1\, 18 16^..6sted whom the - that and ana]ysis excfusion che of resolved Da-onr]a-f ^ '..--r Ju!|J!f- irr-, that , . ? ir - h apprised - ^ offered Corrrr- ^ fL u 26 (a) (2) under the The nexc factor i! M el ("UItimacely, r)a -f \/ reasonably t ^ v eF .srq' e v f ) ' -:+ s d Y 700 F. no fairly Rule b. Ability Lhe i. ni i', and ensure //\. /. ^ - --^s . uo were initiaf his opinions onnosi vyyvJlrrY -5 ri L - n cv * [ Jr !a n rd I^s Defendants concerns nynl J vo L lu-r r r L rJ r n !r v diqr-lnqtt-ps ?6(a\ Silverstein, de lJlv.-us i u u f - r p u r - u . , r Ll)-/ 1 / r-^ Rrrle 2A12 wL 44291'79, aL *6 Abdul Ia, thar rhc qttrnr'Se. chnrr lrj of cro ss-examinat ion or rnf ai r rr- r a nJ^ r! t L| U js r-nrrrqal deposition see alsc - n. n . V vPPvof burncrse yu!t/vJ! expert cure to thiS dispute efficienrfy Lhe RuIe the 25 (a) during (2) (B) not filed or affidavit was a mocion to We do rhi In party on commend either not raenl9o compef a Gross's exr"\Frt- situat ion, a similar stated: Circuit the Eleventh Dr. 1n included that information .li cnrrl-a JI/ur! f l"ha r its nr-n.nenr efforts of rhe to evnertl in the future, its wou.Id do weII to make sure that, and comport with both the spirit Ru-Ie 26 disclosures Nonetheless/ of the rule. the fetter lthe opposing n i r F r u ly / :l I }Jq! Inr.rod lhi e imn:qqe t. conr-intte wel I herzoncl to resofve the issue efforts the point of good faith wirhout court intervenLj on. never moving for an order re.rrri-ir,r l\/ !EYuf!!rrY ^: parryl 's IThe opposing f fL h re l I e^x !n e r t r u u u ! t j-he untenable d6i mortr l a.l rtrqn.nsF n' nni rl'e f.o l^av'no clisLrict exclude a 26. prevent at'cempt to minute Iast j'rzr..r f rom req' nositio. RUle Undef in court witness identil ied for over Lwo years and, i-n fact, deposed by in a trial already plaintiff, continue or the nronress, an rnnal atabl,e so.Lution. In view of these ,.- r. i r n q r -. a n / - a q sa\/ r^,tr.^nnr'\i -hal- l-he for motion of Griffith's deniaf a sancrions \,^ras n abuse of discretion. v. Griffith avna-- irc h:rra see hoan I eo. ..r''-i rn cli sr^l osrrrraatti K. rz'^ t.r pmcnf <rrltnl some materi-af or q respect incorrect r d i-: rrr s!,,!t at *3. s rnr'l if evnF r l .)r correct l-he nFri\/ response Instead attempting for abuse, an clearly affidavic who has made a discfosure or of of FvnFrl "rFn.-- i-ts discfosufe le:r'rs i e to r.r^- that in i n..\mnl Fl- a resolve the qlf Lers from c ^ - - a r s / 2 0 10 was no major o*i ss'on Lhat would have Here, there 'lhe F-.enta Eion . once Pfainliffs Cou-LL also notes that rr- f :Tcl,/ ("A party 'r;nne- inadequacies would disclosure the Due Lo Ehe po-enLia-I WL 3463608/ Groqs's Dr l/ ).tt rrd tu! nrA\/aFi6- -irolv the Pfaintiffs qnnn l cmFnt m r r< f {Al of Plaintiffs die^n-ran, 26(e) (1) L1v. for . original) Defendant had informed If COuf t'S and 3 0 3 F . 3 d L 2 16 , 1 2 8 3 ( 1 l , t h C l r Gen. Motors Corp.. (emphasis ln 2002) rlistriCt contempt F,a ^. .a.i h\r ,,<o L9 ^ f Rule felt it during 25 dispute af fF.t. i rralrr qceki no the harshest In ^i <nnrrarrr 'If q 1-^ .\\^rn finds .l a:rncrj q,rn-ise rFfrr<or.l harm ral'Jnan i na .F.r r\ ^ rl i cnnrrarrz ..li qnl nqrrre\ sanction/ the sanctlons") . ^- d-L rs L9 see : that- 'tf iln (staiino \vro u Y r-rir-r .. ^ -, . _ |,r>L-Lr,Lelr/ where c.n. ^ ,v. ,i !-c-l ^ L a.Lso to addition --., E F or to due ro See that court tar.e 2d af WaS I137-38 hrr CaUSed rrnl- i ma l rr Civ. P. 37(c) (1) (c) of this Iexcfuslon] instead impose may court S 'ytbnJn -" . R. Fed. 66t]I.1 cure _.)n-ar\nn Lllm dlry I c'rL 25(a) (2)(B). district 26 Rttlo Thc suffered Rule 1355 (reversing 1351' . \ appropriate allegedly with j 12-1 a more Defendant r Jr i! c v s oJr z e r r u sr v .:r r.,-r.r ^ t t,, ^,,r^^---!.t at reopen J u}Jvtc o'ru ?i is to Court '" nn non-compliance !!vI,err 5UrJsLd1lL-LdIIy )^/- - summary judgmenl moves Lhe .lcnace re.Lief that 549 E.3d at t.\ avn6rr- i qa6 \::: . partiaf OFS Fitel. f .r alternative n- Plaintiffs' / raanar l-tafand.anr ren.r- this that anv l nrr harm or a v a . i . I a b fe . sanction Defendant a.Iternative, Lhe surpr.rse any Defendant. moved for had suffered, it and cure discovery other :nnrnnr i rt-o . r u l ' u L ' a! y rl q rur! r Jn r i qre J v I ! Ionod afts9sq Avhart- n-f clrrinn r irfnrmal-ian -ha t^.'ro L " L rli c nnrra were :nd Fad l1) di sr-orrerv t)\ qrrrnri F--eoad q + ! v Y v v counsef againsr and^rt exclusion haq qe n. rho -o crrre at -Fr-Irracf r'tn srtnnl a r r r Jr!o nv u nn ri ! this time, Dr. Gross and in of v more hv nranaqed harm ^h'lrf [avor ementa.I are These of it-S rcr r ^' factS reopening rrr with confronted -l-o nr-rrir""'w :hn -^-76ch^hAi rr.l'crn- the nction ased Rule f^- c,rhhyU 26 (a) 12){B) r avl- 2A i , r,A /" m . . .f . . - , 1 l- r e y r a . A i I U - .. ah -^ Soa <rlhr^ information. nr^r,i.lan nnfa rl the Assessing -ha cnr.rf dr c rrrn- i o""r whatsoever. /qrnrin.'t fLhr^ r r qL been refused was nc,t- h66rr nler:ecl on the Now o Jr lrc an r lrriu rorl rrrrjar e_va ! E i-r rr < C}!U-LU5IUII UI ^rAA--1/ YlsaLrJ In affidavit to /l.^r^r-- \rr|.-rt!-rrrr9 proximare 4360618, 1?Aq 542 expert Gross's of as sanct.ion" l aw rq w nas imminent. is information '^r f i -re arnlp the more thoroughly -hc j p-6'r, c-")r' nf against counsefs *5 Supp. (same); evr-lrr<inn 2d aL excfudinq Lo rhis his expert was excfuded ras Defendant would be entitfed e ^ un a r l L x L! malpractice see also of 1335, 2I cases); iqn^^:-i"^ (refusing case-dispositive 216 -os-'nnnrz vs fo ro expert); 500 es1-abIiSh FIuellen, c^Ps! at Ga' 549 F.3d OES Ei!ql-, r-:qe-d 1338 and See Zwiren, 1aw. a u L !rs Yc rr r rr iJ cause in medical of CaSe excremefy important is record, of a matter scv!9fo /rorroz<inn F. Gross from the ^^^r^ia + 'F - lL L La at that court the factor had Evidence the testimony Dr. if stricken judgment rq CaSe r11S of .l:crrrntino this short. the lJL. Indeed, case. alf ihFrtr t F-rA and al.Iow Defendant to d. fmportance Dr. P \l u / \ fOf L364-65 at and no triaf provided l - /\ ? \ I ^ , i l -h . r - f .-rea 'r.lr.l^^r'l^-LrL-L9c1L1ulr. Lr lc ) v \( e \ - 6 u/ reopen discovery Courc to pI Rrrle F.3d district ()F\ calendar have wou.Id be no there daCe reversing 1n expe.rt cestimony 549 rriaf Ae triaf Plaintiffs that Fi n r l s t h a r r. and discoverY) . reopen to \,' frLrt,v! imminent" Gross's OFS Fitef, See rnn^r-:n-l " m uoJ s t t" L or set whj ch Dr. ro extent r ^ r n r dl d i rqu-vr n t - I rhue f - i a r L r ! L \-uqLrrlv Trial of c. Disf,urttion 2008 WL at L r , 1351, \?^rr.rh4 vou9L"r, impose Abdufla, "harsh 2012 *4, wL 4429L19, at to cruciaf *6-1 /crmo\ Dr. Aa Plaintiffs' thi Gross's f.a.f .1r e is testimony -r),rhsel s a.rainSL excluslon. e. Conclusion aanci uvrrJ ^ori -sr! nn of circumstances srrrnri sed AsznArr srrf fir-ierllrr .lrrri nn r.li cr-nrrarrr I)r n i cnnrrarrr jL-e c Lq rfLi tm ro n \ / J r vr j i q as 26(a) 12) tB) cr]lci of however, parties Gross al- i nn f ha rrf the issue sf and under :^r Of fiaf and^nf f c.l t q 22 eyno r- CUIe Reopening r \]r(,DD S CaSe. Ln Ruf e not warrant The Court request . \!f v af a r"i -h r i anr-c 37(c) (1). n]]rn..)sa thi will, does therefore reopen LrrdL 9-Lvcll alternative I imi r.\nri suffered. rc<nlggjgn Rule to availabfe nnr--nnnn- harmfess f nr faCtS aflegedfy i af f idavirj-ha l-\:caQ - dPP!Op!-LdLe their :n.l - time denoqir'ion l-ha FvnFrl been have resofved should stif I is Defendant's r ' {i < n n r r a r r r rhar vy!trrvrr* ffs' Dr. grant -.1 Lis anrl Defendant a- was exclusion a -m. a n l e ' the aAl 2 ont ni o-s. h ri fs o L G-nqqrq Pfainti <r Pf J U IrJn n l Gross -' a - f n a r- -- - 1 d - L-- L Y -q i < sunmary. Dr. 1O- no caused identified there prej udice any 26(a) (2)(B) RuIe Plaintiffs While f^r Pl-alntiffs' have M:rr-h di sr-r-r.erv- urJUvv!rl that finds Court not er<nl ainad he re-Lied on, n-.nair.-:1 should L^rJ-qrrrsu y the with r--.1 f aatf Ual Defendant fhat j-- n-r i - vr-r v u ar Defendant. to c r iv e n i.ltl case, thls harm discernible r n r. u l uL , n:rf non-compliance Dartiaf ro rhe -rrY for d r n / ' l q i f nr. Y r r va PvJ -an/1rj- refief n-. u- and Cr^^^ Summary ,.tudgment B. 7. standazd q , r . n r ra r \ / -ron'ri na r ' li c n r r r e Fq v l 9 I , q ! ! entitled to 55(a) . Facts the -.laJ"rFnt i under suit party, in Court. +hi s r - : 'r r! r ,) / !u at :f must Court the non-movlng Radio 475 Corp., inferences 94t F.2d punctuation and Reaf Prop., (internal r-:sc nF-essFrv Inc iniLj al material-s on l. rr.len 1993). Cir. fha ways - rq to rhe has dantrnds Fitzpatrick triaI. f rr,:l two Clark, (en banc) v. The iustifiable of P. Anderson to Zenith Four Parcefs or hrz to City t / , l h e nt h e n.\/enl- negating by v. on .l^nwt r.r an 6A4, the who of the l-ha- l_Lere 606-08 23 r s case. (1lth show,ing the 323 3I1 , Lhe ALf ant.a, 2 initlal the evt See CIark Cir. 1991) (1986). of 1112, F.3d of burden of da"tce the burden burden element no for basis bears essential 1-he non-movant's 929 F.2d file' non-movant has .arrv mav of burden 477 U'S. Co_.p-___lr.*_!.!t"!!, Cefotex (11th fA.l- v. v. pa.rty reference by Hnr^r 1,-' .r.lzanl- Co. 1991) Cir. moving motion. l favorable Civ. omitted) . The 1115 most is outcome of the (1986) . 248 no movant R. .Iaw. 242t Indus. Lhe cou.Ld affect sr:Lrsra-tive is "lhe-e Fed. faw. " and must draw "a]I U.S. (11th I43'l proof (1986), if and of they U.S. fight the favor. " titsl citations of in 587 574, I428, n!r nv r f v IJ 411 , MaLSushita ELec. U.S. if oorre-n i no the facts the matter a "materiaf" r L ip erL- . ^ ' e+ i ' lrv e p1 - \ h 1 , L rh v . ' ^I r LL y I view as \/ or *^ ' - -.r^ , art y tO iudgment are :nn-onriafe is in the one non- l-o nrove a v. Coats & (expfaining Adickes v. v. Corp. Kress S.H. the consider whether chaui ra that it r.if ', entitfed to .-, l,r"rhrrq ^f I2A nrrri:m\ meet the judgment F.3d met of fact and Jones v. law. Cir. - the CannOt 929 E.2d Clark, its (per L 9 9 1) non-movant the insufficient. is must firsr of of -haC can burden (1lth 254 it initiaf as a matter 248, Court mater.iaf its issues and Celotex the movant carries triaf at burden Before opposition, qtaj- e'rtrn* /^/1n^ |q/1r\/ A rna-a has no genuine are 1-hara is in movant the -^.--- fhrl- (1986)) . response non-movan!'s evaluaLe 317 411 U.S. Catrett, (f970) 744 398 U.S. & Co. / at 508 - If if and only "rJcmonstr:t linol thrt- nronl the ' i t -c burden rLF q nr .r rn q a r olJv u l-o lf n c V r a r r un9 irn llcro : evidence f a.l to materj-aL fact, contains the evidence "come wlthstand If 1116. hv When the 1 -h a the movanL evidence I'nrrq1- an'r-ra\7an- a directed sought to that forward directed with additionaf verdict motion or rcsno^d evidence at triaf WiCh motion at FiLzpatrick, evidence on a show that ignored" its affirmatively be negated. " either was "overlooked fact non-movant carried verdict the movant shows an absence of non-movant must of non-movant must tai1or the whir:h withstand fact on rhe materia] 2 F.3d at or al Id. movant presents the sufficient rrial mareri tt t.riaI, mct Lr.l.i f r-p burden. initial at - by only a materia.L issue indeed irrdoment proof of is there qrrmm:rv r r d a eJ uvL P!LUr bears that j udgmenc sunmary avojd may non-movant' rhe burden, initial the l:ecord by the movant sufficient based on to the : I I 6^a.l Fv\r rv iL r r.Ll ra nJ i u ur qffsYUs -.hh^f uq! r F p ! e ar r - v a f r ! n a, ,in v. /-\*haF\ir qa In nrnlr irlad the marerjals other (Doc. no. ,v. . are 15,) l.2d -F^ l-h^ r^r-i-n the the -r^L-r Pfaintiffs and informed file to lfYLtL as or 56. gave Court them of af f idavit.s or consequences of deIaulr. not-lce requiremenLS oI Griffith 825 (11ch Cir. 922, -ine'o- nrw 1985) materials filing for i< affidavits 1981). and the opposition, The time satisfied. ^.,^i--n -r'^ Therefore, 11. r " 7 --r,w.!. -rr ^ ,1 .L! .i wdf r 91 erlP-L!Es. in of tvr Cir. PrOCedUre bv - - F hr r a |i n t . ( P ir-,^ (1It.h with summary judgment i r u U Yo Lm' eLn rd I L r _ J i* aiVil nf R r'e r\r nla:.lin.rq 1033-34 respond CIerk for motion qrmm^r\/ J u.,uLLq! the fha crn 1032, must hrr Fada-^l The non-movant rtt/ ^^^+-rF^n 663 E.2d acL ion, Lhis 16l\/inal -rr^--+.i^-- non-movant IJ!vvruLv of hrr -LO. at d rrEgdLrt,,rrJ Ross, the Rather, fhF hrrrdcn c v r n"c u IJs or r/ , v o r ' l vl See Morrjs notice il-c r I 't r v ot =+i ! r r v^. it i . o n ^ ' r l u ! v i a rrr (per curiam), opposition has considers in Dr. COnSidefatiOn. 2. Analysis Defendant cr..'ss.s e- r ro e r f ! s y L argues even that I t^a af f ict'".f negligence under Georgia the ..n-Fn-q a o e n r r in e d r s n r r - c o f esrab'l ish if Court Of nate-ial fact (Doc. no. law, the affidavit as 20 at dO not to Defendanc's 10.) The court disagrees. fhe in che same manner as a privaLe substantive or rhe UniLed States FTCA allows om.ission 43606L8, at 1aw of the occurred *5 (citing state qoverns be sued for to and provides individual where the the 28 U.S.C. 25 allegedly action, SS 2674, negligence LhaL the negligent FlueIlen, 1345(b) (r)). act 2008 WL ^--r r ^s \_rE(Jrgro narfarmorl i n Air^rref Mr. because ayPffe : Ca.Jrn i^ To - l,^ s a e . establ j sh medicaf the Iaw, plaintiff must estabLish d4rurL yr r + \ hro:nh of i nharorf nf l-ha I in r 'UlLr] r j r r J hrr and care,' skilI malp.ractice f a i l i n oI larf (3) and .ro Lhat ^:.-<a nF ll^a i--'rv sustained." +4 216 Ga. at (citing Zwiren, to appear the on Plaintiffs in discussed tu-rh a rL hyr r u ^a h!rv.!\uf J u ava a i y r -r! .-rh o u West care is or 3 14 , F.rnArt / 9 u v ,L. \ f - rL.r^ y .r' t \ ca H er e , and r u o! r !r o o l s 9 ! che proximate be Defendant but Care L! the 2 0 0 9 W L 3 ' l5 1 1 5 5 , a c Boatwlight, elemenr, \4/ r a . t l r c ri Jt rc fai-Lure 499) . /.\ ^*^Lr*. LwrrJrrty' th^ does does not challenge element is empl oyed b,y Each elements. '- r n. o . Fv - of is r :r,a n' p -rd r r y . L. L ^ chac tha lor-:lif r rhcc - r an d j I i r-renr:e t q.r^,- rnr-r ?cA have Ca. done Ann- aj- 26 nr a Lr i u tt a SOmeL.hino f77) - manner' want insufficient f.l r er m y t lv y .Eru r o ' l r .' n / Y 1v r . - i ^ L , r Y . ^ \ s v 52I , 523 Lhat the medica-l fuI a , r r " ,l i n ^ ' I.v r y App. 2 9 A G a. skill ^'^" is ordi a presumption r I *It 31'7 (2002) ) . 'worrLd LLC, /n.-nl- inn tA i s a^'r'rrrn i t\, or s, ordinarily -rs ordinarily P-La-LtiLr g!!rYLlIUl.:11\Ygv9+rIY u'i-ness rr law recognizes in is -'- -L S p e ci a l i s t Care Breach whLch arrlr in was performed l l, App. nn "ceorgia rl}rrden ski nh\zci-rans Breas L (2008)). ^-r I sloL Lwo latter Standard n- rv nvfJa e c i n n y J v. -^r "(1) turn, a. -6,r,,i ra^ elements: exerct this duLy the conrest under essential three rrY G e or g i a liability a d n r - - n - - n a y q - - L ::L . , l i tl-o !l/ were surgerres Thornton's of \z due F/r<l-ar to and rhe care or 2C4 show that clifle-enl'v.," "-harcfn-a Ga. an 1d. r n-a:nLiff effect of r o a sr +r !i vY u J u d , r - Ly !> ^Ff which and skif-L medical t.\ er a:znarf defendant -doctor the that care the r o! d e ! , ' ' - 6 r! a c J J ! v , l u s e :nn to '211 /^rnh^ei f - that f hc degree have been employed by e \s"LP-ruJ-J r acj- im.\n\/ exercise f LF 'ta;a. I 1 oenc-a ^- f1PP. failed wou-Ld ordinarily }J / .-j rd . | mar] inal in /-; -^'JnSLanCeS." nrininal \ / i Y u ^ t A ltriv/ r-r\Jn s \^| vLu oroitted) . a.'.rrarj- nni r i ons rcr-nrri< :q s rrfltron I9M €iel^ r-he in his :s the treatment Mr. Dr, Gross rzaqr:nl eri taav/Ai zecl I eacli no c-,rnf in* ,, i nrreq-i.r:f frrvurtrYuLr 6 narfnrmed and should ^na hours later rhac these (rd. 'tLhe l -/ - \ l - h a (Id. renai !vIr'e4! suv 5l -- hF initiaL cruouQuent after As ascerfs by an to return Lo 21 poor.Ly anaStOmOtiC surgery reanastomosis ideaL ileosoLomy (Id.) 51 3.) was anO than operating famjliar (Id- second "Lhe less fef -l below lhe tlgl 4-5. ) rhe on and Augusta VA Lo care. neCfOSiS rhat a second washout. " cwo surgeries of is anastomosis ql.hqenrrc^l have been delayed he by the standard 4.) (Compl., performed surgery provided i n a soi I ed abdomen under arru 5Lqp-.,,e, care. that asserts - r.ensed services. condiLions, similar applicable a .as his medical s an/-a ewna-i havjng and procedures and the Thornton wiLh based Thornton' ma^ical that. he that Mr. an.j ^r i ra:i-F.l n^"r\/ nFtients wirh tL - a js r r 1 -. r! r r Y I +r He states 1-2.) of review his states affidavit sworn rnon r^rell !rr os!vcvrr Ex. Gross/ s Dr, Here, was conditions and closure, room to aL Ieast or 24 Dr. Gross concludes appficable standard of Dr. woufd performed have asserts the that l e n n ' i r ^ e L rF an s\ F n > P a n-i - L - !i v 1-hara s'an.lird r u 9vr-u+t,u a c t -a h l i s l ^ t" ' a _ o.u-u e^ fy u u J f^ h L 7,a mo:ne ir- has in ie :n/^rrr:io m:t e Here, Dr. Gross multipfe 5.) Moreover, in the medical affidavit cercainty." (ld. Arl.lllsl- Mr. must use expert ( c . ic i n g i rFd n^\/ a VA qi r.n.tFt: while -hc Avnrasq cases. 2 16 G a . a L Zwiren, an Lhan flenrn the that within tl 1. ) 28 of the that '-_' r-:q- regardi ng of that medi Cal original). allegedly disabifities. aff i: sub-standard LenqLhy hospical Thornton's an r:nnf r dence opinion 503 (emphasis in that "given testimony malpractice sf:nrtarrl stare experc he states were -hrre \/A fhe medical and currenL re-operations, 1q ran opines in "resufted qf : medica]. certaintyr' 2 16 G a . a t Zwiren, highl ighrs and formed and the probability j -F r r ' r q i ^ r:ausar i on possibiliry." surqeries an the care, evncrl- :-r -ha n.)l Lhat onfy requires nraxi iq Ar'^ *A concfusion the r-ha in of degree '^'hi r^L hrr below Causation causar'ion IRleasonable he fefl wharhFr Lhe plainEiff Iaw, nroximate 500) . expert of Rather' surgery reoar.lino 2009 WL 3151156, at Boatwright, the Lrrz Standard Proximate Under Georgia tn ric aonl icabfe b. colon nrmcd ncrf rir en ,.]errrri ne frrear:hecl fhe q ^-t Thornton Mr. Ior care of n-o n t fI i n a n r - cY 9err- ie of treatment he differently. surgeries the show that merely does not sworn statement Gross's " scay, (Cornp.. l opinions Ex. expressed uEv ! ss )[ Dr. Gross's in causation d ri o yn r r _ p ! q e u u nroximafel v y!v^!11'qLsr.)/ nanl iaanr end DefendanL is n- r v . : l< L m a sr!e l v o\ r iLqL i r r cauqed reasons the -e.rrasf for two these arranoe Gross, i lL-r < f of and ovnarj- Federaf ara date nr naaarl rFn^-j- DIRECTED to further for i nnc is and All -h'r-nlan'c iury were VA i--'-ies. of notifv issue other Motion Defendant's GRAIiITED. Discovery the from (1) date an of thaL Order for DIRECTED to Dr. Ronald and furnish LhiS and Order I'h once Lime, order and provisions of 29 hereby supplement w'tth Court is this are Procedure. the At of deposiLion DfRECTEDto Civil for However, Defendant's part.ies the r-.rns'qr-on- : . r - n n n l i 5 h s c l. trial Augusta DENIED. Defendant's out Rules reasonabfe is days Defendant r ^ r it n a q s L^vs! the \2) CaIe Plaintiffs is 13) purposes: carrv a the Mr above, relief (50) sixty lirnited and forth no. a I t - er n a r i v e REOPENEDfor \rA's a . CONC],USION set Summary Judgment (doc. which is t o s u r n m a r yj u d g m e n t . not entitled III For from medical rhere BeCauSe emp.Loyees of the that decermine that A r.'tttcf : tha i nirrrig5. evidence sufficient beyond concludes r,'haf l'er Tl-.rninn'q M. go that CourL rF.r:-dinn causecl have produced cou-ld the Therefore, on proximate an opinion states cerms acceprab.Le possibility. nsa, nur! r ir n c v i r c affidavit expert a ^iri these the Court notice the Ruf e i wiff Court's 6e linited two of 26 set a pretria.L prlor Schedul ing remain in nr.laTc full force ( rlar g. 11 ) not revised herein shall and ORDER ENTERED AE February, n.|s ll.tlg Lr- Lcr r \rE\r! - Y ra, :his '__\:r,a\ oay -- 201_3. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 30 of

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?