Quinn v. Rauner et al

Filing 94

ORDER DENYING 87 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure MOTION to Bar Witness Testimony filed by Dr. Raza, Abby Elder, M Knope, Wexford Health Sources Inc, Alfonso David. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 3/28/2019. (ely)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRENDA QUINN, as administrator for the, )
Estate of Travis Frederickson
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
)
ALFONSO DAVID, SYED RAZA, NANCY )
KNOPE, ABBY ELDER, and KRISTEN
)
HAMMERSLEY,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 17-cv-669-NJR RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure and
Bar Witness Testimony (Doc. 87) filed by Defendants Wexford, David, Raza, Knope, and Elder.
Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 89). Defendants filed a Reply (91).
Pursuant to the original Joint Report of Parties, approved by the Court (Doc. 34), Plaintiff’s
deadline to disclose experts was September 1, 2018 (Doc. 34-1). The parties were given a
deadline of December 1, 2018 to complete discovery and December 20, 2018 to file dispositive
motions. The Scheduling Order notified the parties, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 29, they could
modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report by written stipulation, except that they could not
modify a date if such modification would impact the deadline for the completion of all discovery,
the deadline for filing dispositive motions, or the date of any court appearance.
On December 4, 2018, the parties informed the Court that discovery was ongoing and that
the parties would file a motion to continue the trial date (Doc. 79). On December 17, 2018, the
Page 1 of 4

parties filed a join motion (Doc. 82) to continue the trial date and reset discovery deadlines. The
joint motion proposed a deadline of February 1, 2019 for Plaintiff to disclose any expert(s). On
December 18, 2018, Judge Reagan granted the request to continue the trial date (Doc. 84). On
January 2, 2019, the Court entered an Amended Schedule adopting the parties’ proposed dates and
setting a discovery deadline of May 21, 2019, and a dispositive motion deadline of June 5, 2019
Doc. 85). Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 29, the parties were still allowed to modify discovery dates
set in the Amended Joint Report by written stipulation, except that they could not modify a date if
such modification would impact the deadline for the completion of all discovery, the deadline for
filing dispositive motions, or the date of any court appearance.
Defendants received Plaintiff’s expert disclosures on February 25, 2019. Defendants
argue this disclosure was 24 days after the deadline had passed and that Plaintiff’s expert disclosure
should be stricken, and Plaintiff’s expert barred from testifying. Plaintiff asserts the parties had
discussed on multiple occasions that the expert would not be disclosed until after the fact witness
depositions were taken and the depositions of defendants were not completed until February 20,
2018. Plaintiff further argues Defendants were not surprised by the disclosure of an expert, as
counsel had discussed that an expert would be disclosed on at least six occasions. Finally,
Plaintiff argues Defendants are not harmed by any late disclosure as there is still time, prior to the
discovery deadline, to depose Plaintiff’s expert.
Both parties submitted numerous email exchanges to the Court to demonstrate whether an
agreement was reached regarding extending the deadline for Plaintiff’s expert disclosure. Most
relevant is an email exchange between counsel that occurred on January 28, 2019, four days prior
to the deadline.

In response to an email from Lisa Cook suggesting rescheduling certain

depositions, counsel for Plaintiff, Louis Meyer, wrote “I was planning on going to Marion
Page 2 of 4

tomorrow and spend the night. However, I am fine with rescheduling, but we may need additional
time to disclose our expert next week.” In response to Mr. Meyer’s email, Abbey Fritz, counsel
for Wexford Defendants, wrote “Although I would rather continue with the deposition as
scheduled, I am available next week on both the 6th and the 8th. Additionally, I would like to
coordinate a time to take the deposition of who authored the Report of Investigation. Please let
me know where is he located and some possible dates for his deposition.” In Response to both
the email from Mr. Meyer and Ms. Fritz, Lisa Cook responded regarding the rescheduling of the
deposition. Neither defense counsel for Wexford Defendants or IDOC Defendants responded to
Mr. Meyer’s request for additional time to disclose his expert. Meyer’s email implied that
agreeing to reschedule the depositions was contingent upon getting additional time to disclose an
expert.
It is clear the parties did not reach a written agreement regarding an extension of time for
Plaintiff’s expert disclosure. However, given the lack of response from defense counsel to the
request for an extension from Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court, in this instance, will not hold Plaintiff
to the deadline. If counsel for Defendants wanted to hold Plaintiff to the firm deadline, counsel
should have acknowledged the request and stated as much prior to the deadline. Additionally, the
Court notes there is nearly two months before the deadline for discovery, so counsel for Defendants
have ample time to depose Plaintiff’s expert without affecting the current trial setting.
For the reasons above, Defendants’ motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure and Bar
Witness Testimony (Doc. 89) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 4

DATED: March 28, 2019

s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4