Ogeechee-Canoochee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al

Filing 74

ORDER denying 70 Motion to Strike the affidavit of Dr. Bruce Pruitt. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 11/30/2009. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

Defendants' motion to strike the affidavit of Dr. Bruce Pruitt is DENIED. Doc. # 70. This day of 30 November 2009

OGEECHEE-CANOOCHEE RIVERKEEPER, INC., Plaintiff,

B AVANT FDENFIELØ+ JUDGE

v.

608CV064

UNFFED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

T.C. LOGGING, INC. and HENRY THOMAS CLARK, Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants' motion to strike the affidavit of Dr. Bruce Pruitt, Plaintiff's expert on wetlands ecology and stream hydrology. Doc. # 70. Defendants argue that Dr. Pruitt's affidavit, doc. # 66-3, filed with the Court on 9/17/09, contained additional opinions in violation of Rule 26. Doc # 70 at 1-3; see F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C) (requiring disclosure of expert testimony "at the times and in the sequence that the court orders"). Plaintiff, however, suggests that Defendants have "mischaracterized the substance of Dr. Pruitt's affidavit" and that "the vast majority of Dr. Pruitt's affidavit came directly from his expert report." Doc. # 71 at 2 (emphasis in original). The Court agrees with Plaintiff. After reviewing relevant portions of Dr. Pruitt's expert report, doc. # 57-3, and the affidavit in question, doc. # 66-3, the Court sees little in the way of "additional opinions" in the latter. 1
Defendants alternatively argue that Plaintiff has improperly supplemented Pruitt's expert report in violation of Rule 26(e). Doc. # 70 at 2; F.R.Civ.P. 26(e) (requiring a party to supplement an expert report when a "disclosure or response is incomplete or
1

incorrect"). The Court disagrees. Rule 26(e) is not at play here as Plaintiff does not supplement Dr. Pruitt's report but, instead, selectively reiterates portions of it.