Corley v. State Of Louisiana Through Division Of Administration, Office Of Risk Management

Filing 222

ORDER: As to 209 Scheduling Order...IT IS ORDERED that Dr. Rennie Culver provide to the pltf a report which complies with FRCP Rule 26(a)(2)(B) by 10/10/2011. This order is not a determination that Dr. Culvers deposition testimony will be admitted into evidence at the trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/29/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IDELLA CORLEY
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 06-882-SCR
STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT
ORDER TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORT
The
relieved

Amended
the

Scheduling

parties

of

the

Order
Rule

issued

September

26(a)(2)(B),

13,

2011

Fed.R.Civ.P.,

requirement that expert witnesses provide a report.

The rule

clearly provides that the court may relive the parties of the
requirement to produce an expert report.1

The intent of the order

was to reduce litigation expenses, since expert reports can be
costly to obtain.

Moreover, since the defendants had not included

any expert witness in their list of witnesses in the Uniform
Pretrial Order,2 it did not appear that there would be any expert
witness who would have to provide a report.

The parties were not

required to include in their witness lists witnesses who would
offer only impeachment or rebuttal testimony.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Amended Scheduling Order

1

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) provides, in part, as follows: “Unless
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must
be accompanied by a written report...” (Emphasis added).
2

Record document number 205.

insofar as it relieved the defendants’ expert medical witness, Dr.
Rennie Culver, of the requirement to produce a report.3

Plaintiff

explained that she underwent a psychological evaluation by Dr.
Culver in connection with her pending workers’ compensation claim
and the defendants intend to rely on the testimony of Dr. Culver at
the trial, but his testimony will be offered by deposition.4

Dr.

Culver’s trial deposition is scheduled for October 14, 2011.
Furthermore,

although

the

plaintiff

advised

counsel

for

the

defendants that she does not intend to participate in Dr. Culver’s
deposition, counsel carefully and correctly explained to her the
possible consequence of not doing so.5
These circumstances were not known by the undersigned when the
Amended Scheduling Order was issued.

Upon further consideration,

the better course is to require Dr. Culver to provide a Rule 26
report.

Although

the

plaintiff

is

still

not

required

to

participate in Dr. Culver’s deposition, with a report from him she
can then reevaluate her decision, taking into consideration the

3

Record document number 220.

4

The court interprets the plaintiff’s statement that she was
“compelled” to submit to a psychological examination by Dr. Culver
to mean that he was not her treating physician. Record document
number 220, opposition, ¶ 5.
Typically, a bona fide treating
physician is not required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) to provide a report
because he is not retained or specially employed to provide expert
testimony.
5

Record document number 220, p. 6, September 19, 2011 letter
to plaintiff.
2

opinions he would offer.
Therefore;
IT IS ORDERED that Dr. Rennie Culver provide to the plaintiff
a report which complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., by
October 10, 2011.
This order is not a determination that Dr. Culver’s deposition
testimony will be admitted into evidence at the trial.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 29, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3