Lifsey et al v. United States of America
ORDER and REASONS - Presently before the Court are Defendant's motion seeking to strike the testimony of Dr. K. Samer Shamieh from trial in this matter (Rec. Doc. 24) and Plaintiff's related motion seeking leave to supplement her witness li st (Rec. Doc. 45). Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, applicable law, and the record in this matter, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion 24 is DENIED and Plaintiff's motion 45 is GRANTED for the reasons as stated within document. Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/22/2017. (cbs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXIS LIFSEY AND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court are Defendant's motion seeking to strike the testimony of Dr. K.
Samer Shamieh from trial in this matter (Rec. Doc. 24) and Plaintiff's1 related motion seeking leave
to supplement her witness list (Rec. Doc. 45). Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions,
applicable law, and the record in this matter, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Rec. Doc.
24) is DENIED and Plaintiff's motion (Rec. Doc. 45) is GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.
The parties' submissions to the Court reflect that Defendant has had notice, since the
beginning of May 2017, that Plaintiff purportedly had begun experiencing neurological symptoms
for which she intended to seek treatment from a new physician. Indeed, that was the basis for the
motion to continue trial that was filed on May 5, 2017. See Rec. Doc. 17. Despite declining to
change the July 13, 2017 trial date, the Court expressed a willingness to consider extending certain
pretrial deadlines and, in fact, subsequently granted a motion to extend the discovery deadline. See
By letter dated June 13, 2017, the Government notified the Court that the claims asserted by
Plaintiff Richard Lifsey have settled. Accordingly, only the claims asserted by Plaintiff Alexis Lifsey
presently remain before the Court.
Rec. Docs. 21 and 39. Since that time, Plaintiff has commended treatment from Dr. Shamieh,
undergone a cervical MRI, and provided the results of the MRI and the records from her
appointment(s) with Dr. Shamieh to Defendant. The depositions of Plaintiff, Dr. Butler, and Dr.
Hoffmann also have been completed, and adequate time still remains for Dr. Shamieh to be deposed,
if Defendant so chooses, prior to trial.
Given the foregoing, it is not apparent to the Court that allowing Plaintiff to add Dr. Shamieh
to her witness list at this juncture will unduly prejudice Defendant. Rather, on the showing made,
the addition of Dr. Shamieh's assessment of Plaintiff's condition, as well as the supplemental
information provided by the cervical MRI ordered by him, presumably will assist the parties in
evaluating their litigation positions and, if an amicable resolution cannot be reached, proceeding to
trial. In any event, the objections that Defendant has raised to the inclusion of Dr. Shamieh's
testimony seemingly can be adequately addressed by additional (limited) discovery, vigorous crossexamination, and argument by counsel.2
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of June 2017.
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
United States District Judge
Although Defendant initially consented to the addition of Dr. Shamieh to Plaintiff's witness
list, it subsequently conditioned that consent on a continuance of the trial date, which the Court ultimately
denied. See Rec. Docs. 21 and 29-1, p. 6 of 18 - p. 8 of 18.
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?