HARTSOCK v. INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTION et al
Filing
157
Order - Denying 160 Motion to Recruit Neutral Expert. Mr. Hartsock's principle purpose in seeking the recruitment of a Rule 706(a) expert is for help in supporting and bolstering his claims. The claims concerning whether Wexford has a polic y, practice, or custom regarding prescription medicines is a predominantly fact-based claim that can be, if at all, proved without expert testimony or an expert's physical examination of a party. Mr. Hartsock's claims appear, at this po int, relatively straightforward such that this Court will be able to understand the claims and evidence presented to resolve them. If at some point later in this litigation the Court discerns that a Rule 706(a) is necessary, the Court will reconsi der whether it should attempt to find and appoint such an expert. The motion for the recruitment of a Rule 706(a) expert, dkt. 150 , is denied without prejudice. (See Order.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/17/2019. (NAD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOSEPH HARTSOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH, INC.;
BRUCE IPPEL; STACEY SCOTT;
GLOVER Dr.; KEITH BUTTS;
JENNIFER FRENCH; AMIE WILLIAMS;
GLEN THOMPSON; THELMA NORNES;
LONG Case Manager; JENNIFER SMITH;
R. DAVIS Chief of Security;
LAURA BASHAM; Sgt. SPARKS;
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:18-cv-01914-TWP-MPB
Order Denying Motion to Recruit Neutral Expert
Plaintiff Joseph Hartsock moves for the Court to recruit a neutral medical expert witness
under Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a). He asks that this expert witness (a) provide evidence
regarding severe migraine headaches, (b) examine him, (c) possibly review the work of the
defendants, and (d) testify in support of his policy, practice, or custom claims against defendant
Wexford. Dkt. 150. Mr. Hartsock also asks that the pretrial schedule deadline for identifying expert
witnesses be extended if his motion is granted. Id.
Rule 706 allows a court to appoint a neutral expert witness “that the parties agree on and
any of its own choosing.” Fed. R. Evid. 706(a). The purpose of this rule is to allow a court to obtain
neutral expert testimony when “scientific or specialized knowledge will help the court to
understand the evidence or decide a disputed fact.” Elcock v. Davidson, 561 F. App’x 519, 524
(7th Cir. 2014). The Court “need not appoint an expert for a party’s own benefit or to explain
symptoms that can be understood by a layperson.” Turner v. Cox, 569 F. App’x 463, 468 (7th Cir.
2014) (citations omitted); see Dobbey v. Carter, 734 F. App’x 362, 364-65 (7th Cir. 2018)
(“Federal Rule of Evidence 706 allows appointment of an expert witness if necessary to help the
court understand the issues, not to assist a party in preparing his case.” (citing Ledford v. Sullivan,
105 F.3d 354, 358-59 (7th Cir. 1997)).
Mr. Hartsock’s principle purpose in seeking the recruitment of a Rule 706(a) expert is for
help in supporting and bolstering his claims. The claims concerning whether Wexford has a policy,
practice, or custom regarding prescription medicines is a predominantly fact-based claim that can
be, if at all, proved without expert testimony or an expert’s physical examination of a party.
Mr. Hartsock’s claims appear, at this point, relatively straightforward such that this Court will be
able to understand the claims and evidence presented to resolve them. If at some point later in this
litigation the Court discerns that a Rule 706(a) is necessary, the Court will reconsider whether it
should attempt to find and appoint such an expert.
The motion for the recruitment of a Rule 706(a) expert, dkt. [150], is denied without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/17/2019
2
Distribution:
Joseph Hartsock
966460
New Castle Correctional Facility - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
New Castle, IN 47362
Douglass R. Bitner
Katz Korin Cunningham, P.C.
dbitner@kkclegal.com
Adam Garth Forrest
Boston Bever Klinge Cross & Chidester
aforrest@bbkcc.com
3
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?