Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp. v. Mississippi Rice and Grain II, LLC

Filing 37

ORDER granting 32 Motion to Strike. Signed by Jane M Virden on 6/18/2012. (sef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP.
D/B/A CENTERPOINT ENERGY MISSISSIPPI GAS
VS.

PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:11cv109-M-S

MISSISSIPPI RICE AND GRAIN II, LLC

DEFENDANT

ORDER
This matter came before the court on the motion of Defendants to strike plaintiffs’
designation of experts (#32). After considering the motion and record in this case, the court finds
it to be well-taken.
On March 14, 2012, this court entered an agreed order extending the case management
order deadlines in this case setting April 13, 2012, as the deadline for the plaintiffs to designate
experts. On April 16, 2012, the plaintiff served its designation of experts. On April 17, 2012,
the defendant, by and through counsel, emailed an objection to plaintiff’s counsel regarding this
designation of experts. Specifically, defense counsel addressed the designation’s failure to give a
summary facts and opinions on which the experts relied or any expert report as required by the
rules. The plaintiff did not respond to the current motion, and the time for doing so has now
expired.
Uniform Local Rule 26(a)(2) and Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
require a party to make full and complete disclosures of individuals they intend to call as experts
at trial no later than the time specified in the case management order. The federal rules provide
that "unless otherwise stipulated or ordered, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written

1

report-prepared and signed by the witness." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). This report must contain
the information outlined in the rule, including, but not limited to, a complete statement of all
opinions and the basis for those opinions signed by the witness.
Additionally, the Fifth Circuit has enumerated factors to be considered when reviewing a
motion to strike an expert designation. Those factors are: (1) the respondent's explanation for the
failure to identify the witness; (2) the importance of the testimony; (3) the potential prejudice in
allowing the testimony; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure prejudice. Geiserman v.
MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 1990).
There has been no explanation for the failure to provide an adequate expert disclosure and
report as required by the rules, nor has there been any defense of the importance of the expert
testimony, and no continuance has been sought. Given that there has been no response to the
current motion at all, the court relies on the defendant’s position that to allow this deficient
designation will likely result in prejudice to the defendants.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to strike is hereby
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of June 2012.
/s/Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2