Donaway et al v. Rohm and Haas Company, Louisville Plant

Filing 139

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 8/29/12 denying 130 Motion to Strike Expert Witness Disclosure; Dispositive motions schedule established in the Courts Docket No. 138 shall remain in effect; Any remaining discovery regarding Plaintiffs experts may be conducted prior to October 10, 2012; Parties shall expect that the Court will set a telephone conference in the coming weeks to discuss any further procedural or substantive issues. cc:counsel (DAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06CV-575-H
JUDITH DONAWAY, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.
ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY
LOUISVILLE PLANT

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Sometime ago Defendant moved to strike Plaintiffs’ expert disclosure of David A. Weeks
on the grounds that his testimony duplicated that of James R. Riffle and also had the unfair
potential for expanding the established scope of the case. Plaintiffs responded by saying that the
disclosure was timely and that Riffle’s opinions were submitted solely to support Plaintiffs’ class
allegations. Both sides had some reason to believe that they should prevail on this motion.
Defendant thinks the case has been delayed too long; Plaintiffs say that they were never
prohibited from advancing additional expert opinions. Both may be correct.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the procedural history of this case in considering the
current motion. The Fifth Amended Complaint, which was ordered filed on August 26, 2011,
deleted the class action allegations from the case. In addition, this Court’s prior and subsequent
decisions have narrowed the substantive legal claims to those for trespass under state law.
However, the Court never expressly narrowed the factual scope of the case as Defendant has
requested.
In the current motion, the parties argue about whether previous expert disclosure was
limited to the issue of class certification or whether it should have included all of the substantive
allegations of the complaint as well. Certainly the Court had prior questions about whether

Riffles’ initial testimony was directed solely at the class allegations or whether he actually
intended to give opinions about all of the substantive issues in the case. Regardless, Plaintiffs
filed the Weeks’ disclosure within the time allowed. The Court had extended the time for
Plaintiffs to file expert witness disclosures on a number of occasions and for a variety of sound
reasons. Because Plaintiffs filed the Weeks’ expert disclosure in a timely fashion, the Court
believes that it should be allowed to stand pending other objections. The Court does not believe
that Defendant would be unfairly prejudice by the disclosure.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs’ expert
disclosure is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dispositive motions schedule established in the
Court’s Docket No. 138 shall remain in effect.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any remaining discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ experts
may be conducted prior to October 10, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall expect that the Court will set a
telephone conference in the coming weeks to discuss any further procedural or substantive
issues.

August 29, 2012

cc:

Counsel of Record

2