Stallworth v. City of Pleasant Ridge et al

Filing 47

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 35 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Proposed Experts. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LARRY STALLWORTH
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-10696
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CITY OF PLEASANT RIDGE et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED EXPERTS (ECF #35)
In this action, Plaintiff Larry Stallworth alleges that during a traffic stop on
March 1, 2014, the Defendants violated his civil rights and caused him physical
injury. (See First Am. Compl., ECF #1.) On April 28, 2017, Stallworth filed expert
disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). (See ECF #37.) In
Stallworth’s disclosures, he identified two categories of experts: (1) his treating
medical professionals and (2) “experts in the Field of Use of Force/Police
Procedures/Police Misconduct/Crime Scene Investigation/Corrections/Jail Policy.”
(Id. at Pg. ID 260, 264.)

1

On May 18, 2017, Defendants the City of Ferndale and Officer Champine
filed a motion to strike Stallworth’s proposed experts. (See ECF #35.) According to
these Defendants, Stallworth’s disclosures failed to comply with the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). (See id.)
The Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion on August 2, 2017. For the
reasons stated on the record during that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
 The Court will STRIKE the two experts in Stallworth’s expert report listed
under the category of “experts in the Field of Use of Force/Police
Procedures/Police Misconduct/Crime Scene Investigation/Corrections/Jail
Policy.”1 (See ECF #37 at Pg. ID 264.)
 To the extent Defendants’ motion requests that the Court strike Stallworth’s
treating medical professionals from offering evidence and/or testifying at trial,
the Court DENIES the motion. However, as the Court stated on the record,
Stallworth’s expert disclosures concerning the testimony to be provided by
these treating medical professionals are insufficient. Accordingly, by no later
than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2017, Stallworth shall file

1

At the hearing on Defendants’ motion, Stallworth’s counsel represented to the
Court that he did not plan on calling these witnesses at trial and that he did not object
to the entry of an order striking these witnesses from being called as experts in this
action.
2

amended expert disclosures that list each and every treating medical
professional that Stallworth plans to rely upon and/or call as a witness at trial.
In addition, Stallworth’s amended expert disclosures shall, on an individualby-individual basis, state “the subject matter on which the witness is expected
to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705” and (2)
“a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to
testify.” Federal Rule of Civ. Proc. 26(a)(2)(C)(i)-(ii).
 The parties shall have until November 6, 2017, to conduct expert discovery.
 The Court will set a telephonic status conference to take place during the week
of November 6, 2017, to discuss the possibility of Daubert motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2017

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on August 2, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3