Sablic v. Gutierrez et al

Filing 32

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 27 MOTION to Strike Supplemental Initial Disclosures and Expert Witnesses filed by Ricky Brummett, Doug Weaver, Juan Carlos Gutierrez, Keith Wallace. The Pla is hereby precluded from using the three expert witnesses and the accompanying records and report listed in his Supplemental Pretrial Disclosures. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 8/28/2012. (lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JOSEPH L. SABLIC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FORT WAYNE CITY POLICE OFFICERS
)
JUAN CARLOS GUTIERREZ, #1769;
)
KEITH WALLACE, #1702; DOUG WEAVER, )
#1807; and RICKY BRUMMET, #1545;
)
)
Defendants.
)

CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-286

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Initial Disclosures and Expert Witnesses (Docket # 27), seeking to preclude Plaintiff from
calling previously undisclosed expert witnesses or introducing their records or reports. The
Motion was filed on August 9, 2012, and is apparently unopposed as Plaintiff has not filed a
response and the time to do so has since passed.
On October 27, 2011, by approving the Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting (Docket #
10), the Court set deadlines of March 16, 2012, for Plaintiff’s submission of any expert reports
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), and May 17, 2012, for the completion of all
discovery. (Docket # 11.) On August 6, 2012, after both of these deadlines had passed, Plaintiff
served Defendants with Supplemental Initial Disclosures, in which he identified three expert
witnesses and listed records and a report from these experts. (Docket # 27 at ¶¶ 1-3.)
The disclosures come almost five months after the expert report deadline and almost
three months after the close of discovery, and Plaintiff never requested an extension to disclose
1

these expert witnesses or their supporting documents. Moreover, the trial is set to begin on
December 4, 2012, slightly over three months away, with a final pretrial conference scheduled
for November 1, 2012. (Docket # 11.) In short, no good cause has been shown for any
extension of the deadline, FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4), nor has Plaintiff suggested that the failure to
timely disclose these witnesses was substantially justified or harmless, FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c)(1).
Accordingly, considering the untimeliness of Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures, the
proximity of the trial date, and Plaintiff’s apparent lack of opposition, Defendants’ Motion to
Strike (Docket # 27) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is hereby precluded from using the three expert
witnesses and the accompanying records and report listed in his Supplemental Pretrial
Disclosures.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 28th day of August, 2012.
S/Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

2