Harkins et al v. The RV Factory, LLC
Filing
28
OPINION AND ORDER. The Court DENIES 17 MOTION to Strike The Second Expert Witness Report of Dennis Bailey filed by The RV Factory, LLC. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/19/19. (ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHELE HARKINS, DAN HARKINS
and GETAWAY CREW, LLC,
Plaintiffs
VS.
THE RV FACTORY, LLC,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cause No. 3:17-CV-853 RLM-MGG
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant The RV Factory, LLC, filed a motion to strike the supplemental
report of Dennis Bailey, an expert witness for the plaintiffs, arguing that the
supplemental report presents new information and was untimely filed. Plaintiffs
Michele and Dan Harkins and Getaway Crew, LLC, contend that Mr. Bailey’s
expert report was timely supplemented and is properly disclosed. For the
following reasons, the court denies The RV Factory’s motion.
Mr. and Mrs. Harkins brought this case against The RV Factory on breach
of warranty and breach of contract claims, alleging that The RV Factory sold
them a defective RV. Reports from retained experts filed under Rule 26(a)(2) were
due from Mr. and Mrs. Harkins by January 14, 2019, reports from The RV
Factory were due by February 14, and the discovery deadline was May 1. [Doc.
No. 13]. The court directed the parties to exchange contentions and witness and
exhibit lists pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) by February 17,
2020. [Doc. No. 15].
On January 3, 2019, Mr. Bailey investigated Mr. and Mrs. Harkins’s
vehicle, a 2017 RV Factory Weekend Warrior. Mr. and Mrs. Harkins served The
RV Factory with a timely expert report from Mr. Bailey nine days later. Mr. Bailey
said that after looking at the plaintiffs’ RV, he investigated another RV of the
same make and model for a different case and did more research on a defect that
he noticed on both vehicles. Mr. Bailey researched and spoke to RV dealers, and
he concluded the defect he found on the Harkins RV could cause a fatal accident.
He submitted a supplemental report to Mr. and Mrs. Harkins reflecting this
opinion on May 2, and Mr. and Mrs. Harkins served the supplement to The RV
Factory the same day. Four days later, The RV Factory deposed its own expert,
who offered rebuttal testimony about the supplement at his deposition. The RV
Factory also questioned Mr. Bailey about the supplement at his June 24
deposition.
A retained expert witness must produce a written report containing “a
complete statement of all opinions the witnesses will express and the basis and
reasons for them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). An expert who has made a
disclosure under Rule 26(a) must supplement or correct his disclosure “in a
timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or
response is incomplete or incorrect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). Rule 26(e) “does
not give the producing party a license to disregard discovery deadlines and to
offer new opinions under the guise of the ‘supplement’ label.” Allgood v. Gen.
2
Motors Corp., No. 1:02-CV-1077-DFH-TAB, 2007 WL 647496, at *3 (S.D. Ind.
Feb. 2, 2007) (citing Solaia Technology LLC v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 361 F.Supp.2d
797, 806 (N.D. Ill. 2005)). The rule allows a party to supplement or correct
information, but it “does not give license to sandbag one's opponent with claims
and issues which should have been included in the expert witness’ report[.]”
Allgood v. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 1:02-CV-1077-DFH-TAB, 2007 WL 647496, at
*3 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2007) (quoting Beller v. United States, 221 F.R.D. 689, 695
(D.N.M. 2003)). A supplemental report must be based on information that has
become available since the expert filed his first report, not just on information
that is new to the expert. Schmucker v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 3:14CV-1593-JD, 2019 WL 718553, at *8 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 19, 2019) (distinguishing
newly collected information from new developments). Additions or changes to a
Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert witness report must be disclosed by the Rule 26(a)(3)
pretrial disclosures deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2). Unless it was substantially
justified or harmless, a party’s failure to comply with Rule 26 results in exclusion
of the witness or information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Courts consider four factors
in exercising discretion to admit or exclude: “(1) the prejudice or surprise to the
party against whom the evidence is offered; (2) the ability of the party to cure the
prejudice; (3) the likelihood of disruption to the trial; and (4) the bad faith or
willfulness involved in not disclosing the evidence at an earlier date.” David v.
Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2003).
The RV Factory argues that Mr. Bailey’s supplemental report offers new
conclusions as to the safety of the Harkins RV and so is inadmissible under Rule
3
26. Mr. Bailey noted in his first report that the RV had structural damage below
the bedroom slide out on the front driver’s side “causing cracking in phylon” and
that structural damage on the driver’s side front was “causing the phylon to
bulge.” [Doc. No. 18-2 p. 3]. He also noted that the bedroom slide couldn’t extend
or retract. Id. At the end of his report, he concluded: “Did the RV’s defects
substantially impair the use and/or value and/or safety of the RV? They did.”
[Doc. No. 18-2 p. 45]. In his second report, Mr. Bailey’s discussion of the slide
out and the RV’s safety is more detailed. He writes:
It is also my opinion that after numerous attempts to repair
the structural failure in the side-wall at the slide out front bottom
corner, the structural fracture will increase during normal operation
and therefore create a situation that is potentially dangerous to both
the owner/driver/occupants and the general public. Therefore, due
to this safety defect this Rv [sic] should not be used on public
highways.
[Doc. No. 18-3 p. 2]. The RV Factory contends that because Mr. Bailey’s first
report didn’t discuss how structural damage might impact the vehicle over time,
this passage in the supplemental report is a new conclusion that can’t be
submitted under Rule 26. The Harkins argue that the disclosure was
substantially justified because the second report’s damage discussion is based
on new information.
The report is based on new information in the sense that Mr. Bailey didn’t
know how the defect on the Mr. and Mrs. Harkins’s RV might change or worsen
over time until he saw another Weekend Warrior for another case. But the
resources that helped Mr. Bailey reach that conclusion weren’t a new
development. The research methods he used and the information he uncovered
4
after inspecting the second Weekend Warrior were all available when Mr. Bailey
wrote his first report, so the supplement isn’t based on new information under
Rule 26.
The RV Factory argues that the supplement should be excluded under
Rule 37 because it was unjustified and harmful. The defendant contends that it
will incur additional discovery costs if the report isn’t stricken and that the
court’s discovery schedule will be undermined.
Based on the court’s analysis of the four factors in David v. Caterpillar,
the report was substantially justified and harmless. Under the first two factors,
The RV Factory was not unduly prejudiced by the supplemental report and had
opportunities to cure any prejudice that might have occurred. Mr. and Mrs.
Harkins delivered the supplemental report four days before the deposition of The
RV Factory’s expert, but that deposition was conducted as scheduled and the
expert was still able to offer rebuttal testimony. The RV Factory was able to
question Mr. Bailey about the report at his own deposition. If The RV Factory felt
it needed more time for discovery after receiving Mr. Bailey’s supplement, it could
have filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline for good cause.
The supplement, filed in May well before the Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial
disclosures deadline, isn’t likely to disrupt the trial based on the case’s current
deadlines. The proximity of the dispositive motion deadline might have been an
issue for The RV Factory, but the parties have agreed to seek an extension of
that deadline. [Doc. No. 26].
5
Finally, the report wasn’t filed so late that it should be considered bad faith
or willfulness on the plaintiffs’ part. Mr. and Mrs. Harkins didn’t file the
supplement to bolster their position on a dispositive motion; none have been
filed. Mr. Bailey investigated the second Weekend Warrior because a lawyer
retained him in another case, not because Mr. and Mrs. Harkins requested
supplemental research for an extra report. Mr. Bailey supplemented his report
after concluding that the defect he observed on both vehicles is dangerous,
testifying in his deposition that “someone could get killed.” [Doc. No. 23-5, p. 3].
For the reasons stated above, the court DENIES the defendant’s motion to
strike the plaintiff’s supplemental expert report. [Doc. No. 17].
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED:
September 19, 2019
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court
6
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?