Sharma v. Howard County

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 50 Motion to Strike; and vacating 52 Courts Order. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 5/21/14. (apls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

AMIT SHARMA,

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*
CIVIL No. JKB-12-2269

HOWARD COUNTY, et al.

*

Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert
witness disclosure (ECF No. 50). Having carefully considered the arguments of counsel in their
filings with regard to this motion (ECF Nos. 50, 54, and 58), the motion is DENIED. Further,
upon reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No.49) is GRANTED and
the Court’s prior order (ECF No. 52) is VACATED.
The issue now before the Court stems from Plaintiff’s disclosure of Stephen Windsor as a
computer expert on March 24, 2014. ( ECF No. 50-6.) While Plaintiff appears to have initially
identified Mr. Windsor as a case-in-chief expert (see ECF No. 50 at 1), he now concedes that
“Mr. Windsor’s designation should be solely for rebuttal purposes.” (ECF No. 54 at 1.) In light
of this concession, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s disclosure of Mr. Windsor, as a rebuttal
expert, was timely. Further, having noted Defendants’ argument that the disclosure lacks the
essential content required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) (see ECF Nos. 50 at 49, 51-52 and 58 at
2), the Court nonetheless concludes that striking Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert witness disclosure is
not justified. The Court emphasizes, however, that should Mr. Windsor testify at trial, it will be

as a rebuttal expert and his testimony shall therefore be limited in scope not only by the content
of his expert testimony disclosure but also by the testimony of Defendants’ expert witnesses.
Further, in light of this ruling, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time
(ECF No.49) to the limited extent that Defendant shall have until June 4, 2014 to file his Rule
26(e)(2) supplemental disclosure with regard to Mr. Windsor. However, in granting Plaintiff’s
motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 49), the Court is not granting Plaintiff additional time
to examine Defendants’ computer systems and hardware.

Plaintiff has been dilatory in

responding to the redaction protocol for the inspection of electronic data that Defendants
proposed months ago, in the fall of 2013. Despite three extensions granted by the Court (ECF
Nos. 35, 41, and 47), the discovery deadline has now passed and with it the timeframe for Mr.
Windsor’s examination of Defendants’ computer systems and hardware.1

Dated this 21st day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

1

However, to the extent Defendants require an extension to schedule a deposition of Mr. Windsor, the Court is
willing to consider a motion to that effect.

2