Halsey et al v. AGCO Corporation et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 60 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order of 7/27/2017 are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 8/10/2017.(SCD)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

SCOTT HALSEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AGCO CORPORATION,

et al.,,

Defendants.

Civil Case No.
16-cv-461-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

***

This

matter

is

before

the

Court

for

consideration

of

Plaintiffs’ Objections [DE 60] to the Magistrate Judge’s Order
[DE 58] of July 27, 2017, denying their Motion for Leave to File
Expert Disclosures [DE 56]. Under Fed. R. Civ. P 62(a), the
undersigned may “modify or set aside any part of the order that
is

clearly

erroneous

or

contrary

to

law”

upon

a

party’s

objections.
Plaintiffs argue that because the Court ordered only that
“reports from opinion witnesses pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)” were
due

from

Plaintiff

on

July

1,

2017,

the

disclosures

for

witnesses who do not provide a written report under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a)(2)(C) would be due, by default, at least 90 days before
trial in light of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(i). Plaintiffs
argue that the order should have read that there was a deadline
for

both

Rule

26(a)(2)(B)

reports

and

Rule

26(a)(2)(C)

disclosures instead of just mentioning reports under Rule 26(a)
if the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion was the Court’s intention.
If this was so very clear, the Court wonders why Plaintiffs
sought leave of court to make the disclosures at all and why
Plaintiffs

did

not

seek

clarification

of

the

Court’s

order

earlier if there was any confusion about what was due by July 1,
2017, as Plaintiffs’ motion and objection now suggest.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that they identified all of
the proposed opinion witnesses in their Rule 26(a)(1) initial
disclosure to Defendants well before July 1, 2017, which should
suffice

to

identify

the

opinion

witnesses.

The

Court

has

examined that document, in which Plaintiffs stated that “the
medical providers producing medical record and billing produced
in accordance with these initial disclosures are expected to
have knowledge of the injuries sustained by Mr. Halsey.” [DE 29]
There is no suggestion that the medical providers identified
would offer any opinion on causation, the source of any injury,
or any other opinion beyond their personal knowledge of Mr.
Halsey’s injuries obtained from treating them.

This does not

qualify as the type of disclosure anticipated by the scheduling
order or Rule 26(a)(2).
Ultimately, the Court can find nothing in the Magistrate
Judge’s decision which is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

2

Accordingly,

Plaintiffs’

Objections

[DE

60]

Magistrate Judge’s Order of July 27, 2017, are OVERRULED.
This the 10th day of August, 2017.

3

to

the