Jellis v. Harrington et al
ORDER denying 255 Motion to Strike. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, Defendants' motion to strike is DENIED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to supplement his expert witness disclosure, however, on or before October 16, 2019. Defendants are granted leave to file a motion in limine out of time related to the expert testimony of Dr. Coe, provided that the motion is filed by October 22, 2019. Plaintiff's response, if any, shall be filed by October 25, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 10/11/2019. (kll)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DONALD LINDENBERG, and
Case No. 3:15-cv-630-GCS
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a motion by Defendants to strike the
expert disclosure of Dr. Coe, one of Plaintiff Jerry Jellis’s treating physicians. Defendants
argue that Jellis did not disclose Dr. Coe as anything other than a fact witness until
August 6, 2019, and, as such, the disclosure is untimely. For the reasons delineated below,
Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 255) is DENIED.
The scheduling order in this action (Doc. 43) is silent as to expert disclosures. In
the absence of a court order stating otherwise, expert witnesses must be disclosed “90
days before the date set for trial.” FED. R. CIV. PROC. 26(a)(2)(D)(i). Trial in this action is
scheduled to commence on November 4, 2019, meaning expert witness disclosures were
due to opposing counsel no later than August 6, 2019. There is no dispute that Jellis
disclosed Dr. Coe as an expert on August 6, 2019, and, as such, the Court finds the
In addition to timely disclosure, Rule 26(a)(2) necessitates that expert disclosures
Page 1 of 2
meet certain substantive requirements. Defendants’ motion to strike raises a twosentence argument as to the lack of substance in the disclosure, arguing that the
disclosure is conclusory and fails to state with particularity the opinions about which Dr.
Coe will testify.1 The disclosure of an expert witness who does not provide a written
report must state: (i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence . . . ; and (ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is
expected to testify.” FED. R. CIV. PROC. 26(a)(2)(C).
Jellis disclosed that Dr. Coe will testify about Plaintiff’s medical history,
conditions, examinations, treatments, and response to treatments during his
incarceration and would render an opinion on the same. The disclosure technically
encompasses the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(C), but the Court directs Plaintiff to
supplement the disclosure with a more in-depth description of Dr. Coe’s testimony on or
before October 16, 2019.
Defendants are granted leave to file a motion in limine out of time specifically
related to Dr. Coe’s testimony, provided that the motion is filed by October 22, 2019.
Plaintiff’s response, if any, shall be filed by October 25, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by
Gilbert C. Sison
Dated: October 11, 2019.
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants make a more detailed argument in their reply, though they cite no law in support of
their position. Reply briefs are disfavored under the Local Rules, and arguments raised in them need not
be considered by the Court, particularly where, as here, a party fails to identify extraordinary reasons
justifying a reply. Nonetheless, the Court will weigh the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s disclosure.
Page 2 of 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?