Williams v. State of Louisiana

Filing 54

ORDER AND REASONS denying 38 Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Expert Witness, Dr. Marc Zimmermann, From Testifying at Trial. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 11/12/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CATHERINE WILLIAMS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
STATE OF LOUIS IANA

No. 14-00154-BAJ-RLB
ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Expert
Witness, Dr. Marc Zimmermann, From Testifying at Trial (Doc. 38) filed by
Catherine \¥illia ms ("Plaintiff'). Plain tiff . eeks to exclude testimony from the State
of Louisiana's ("Defendant") expert physicia n on t he ground that he has not
produced certain disclosures required unde r Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
("Rule") 26(a)(2)(B). 1 Defendant has opposed t he Motion. (Doc. 42). Oral a rgume nt
is not necessary. For t he reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff avers that she is an Mrican American female who was employed by

the Louisiana Workforce Commission from J a nuary 1980 until she re tired in June
2011. (Doc. 1 at,,,, 11, 13). Plaintiff claims s he was "passed ove r" for promotion on
or a bout March 29, 2010, in favor of a purportedly less qualified, Caucasian female
whom she s upe rvised. (See id. at ,,,, 7, 13, 20). Williams contends she was not
promoted because of her "race and/or ge nder" in violation of Title VII. (Id. at ,, 31).
1 Plaintiff also argued that failure to exclude Dr. Zimmerman's testimony would be unfail'ly
prejudicial and mislead ing to the jury in the event tlus Court excluded or limited the expert
testimony of her treating physician, Dr. Paul Oam mers. Beca use this Cour t decli ned to exclude or
limit the testimony of Dr. Paul Dammers, (Doc. 4 1), this argum ent is moot.

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
In determining whether to strike a party's designation of an expert witness

and exclude such testimony as a sanction for violation of a discovery order, a district
court mus t avoid abusing its discretion. The Fifth Circuit has listed four factors
that a district court should consider to guide its deci ion in such matters: (1) "the
explanation, if any, for the party's failure to comply with the discovery order"; (2)
"the importance of the witness['] testimony"; (3) "the prejudice to the opposing party
of allowing the witnes

0 to

testify"; and (4) "the possibility of curin g such prejudice

by granting a continuance." Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter u. Cedar Point Oil Co.

Inc. , 73 F.3d 546, 572 (5th Cir. 1996).

II.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that the testimony of Defe ndant's expert witness, Dr.

Zimmermann, should be excluded because it failed to disclose the following as
required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B): a list of publications he authored in the previous
ten years, a list of cases in which he was qualified as an expert to testify in the last
four years, and a concise statement of the compensation he has received in relation
to his services in this case. (Doc 38-2 at p. 3). Plaintiff asserts that she will be
prejudiced by Dr. Zimmermann's insufficient disclosures because she cannot
adequately prepare for his tria l t esti mony. (Id. at p. 4). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts
that she ca nnot ask her own expert, Dr. Paul Dammers, about Dr. Zimmermann's
publications . (Id). In full candor, Plaintiff concedes, however , t hat this defect could
be cured by a trial continuance. (Id. at p. 5).

2

Defe ndant asserts that it timely disclosed the ide ntity of Dr. Zimmermann,
his exper t report, a nd his fee schedule by March G, 2015. (Doc. 42 at p. 1).
Defendant further asser ts that Plai ntiff did not contact it a bou t any deficiencies in
its expert disclosures until the filing of her motion in limine. (!d. at pp. 1- 2).
Drawing on t he fac tors se t forth in Sierra Club , 73 F.3d 546, 572, Defenda n t asserts
that its failure to com ply with Rule 26 disclosures was "harmless" because Plaintiff
waited one- hundred a nd ninety days to object to the inco mplete disclosures and h as
since bee n given a list of a ll cases a nd publications necessary to satisfy t he
requireme nts of Rule 26. (Id. at pp. 3-5). As a result, Defendant a rgues Plaintiff
will s uffe r no prejudice by allowing Dr. Zimmerma n to testify. (Id. at p. 4).
Defenda n t stresses Lhal Dr. Zimmerm a nn is it

only exper t wi t ness a nd his

testimony is critical to its defense. (Id. at p. 3). Lastly, Defendant maintains that, it
inadvertently failed to comply wit h Rule 26 and did not act with the purpose of
delaying t his litigation. (Id. at p. 5).
Upon review, this Court finds that Plaintiff did not s uffer any undue
prejudice from Defenda nt's incomplete disclosures of Dr. Zimmerm a nn that would
warrant his exclusion as a n importan t expert witness in this matter. Plaintiffs
motion to exclude Dr. Zimmermann's testimony was lar gely undercut when this
Court allowed her expert, Dr. Pa ul Dam mers, to testify in the face of a simila r
motion in limine filed by Defendant. (See Doc. 41). Any harm Plaintiff suffered has
smce bee n addressed by Defendant's supplemental disclosures. In exercising its
wide discretion in t his discovery related matter, this Court a lso notes that

3

Defendant made a good fait h effor t to meet t he disclosure deadline when it timely
identified Dr. Zimmerman as an expert witness and timely disclosed his report and
his fee schedule.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to

Exclude D efenda nt's Expert Witness, Dr. Marc Zimmermann, From
Testifying at Trial (Doc. 38) is DENIED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this I

2.

~day of Nove mber, 2015.

BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4