Corinthian Court Holdings, LLC v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
ORDER denying 31 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on December 16, 2016. (js)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CORINTHIAN COURT HOLDINGS, LLC
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-111-KS-MTP
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Expert
Designations . Having considered the Motion , the Court finds that it should be denied.
On September 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order  consolidating the instant action
and Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-18-KS-MTP. In these cases, Plaintiff asserts breach of contract,
bad faith, and other claims against Defendant arising from Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim
for insurance proceeds relating to property damage allegedly caused by Hurricane Isaac on
August 29, 2012, and damage to the same property allegedly caused by a tornado on February
On September 20, 2013, the Court entered an Amended Case Management Order ,
which set Plaintiff’s expert designation deadline as October 3, 3016, and Defendant’s expert
designation deadline as November 3, 2016. On November 1, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion
, requesting that the Court extend its expert designation deadline until after its experts had an
opportunity to inspect the subject property. The Court found that the requested extension of an
unspecified time after Defendant’s experts could inspect the property was not justified. See Order
. The Court, however, granted Defendant a modest extension of its expert designation
deadline—until November 10, 2016. Id.
On November 10, 2016, Defendant designated three experts: H. Kenneth Lefoldt, Jr., W.
Mark Watson, and Henry Ted Dearman. See Notice ; Exhibit [31-2]. On November 21,
2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Expert Designations . Plaintiff
argues that “any incomplete expert reports and opinions submitted on or before November 10,
2016 should be stricken as non-compliant with the Fed. R. Civ. Proc. and Federal Rules of
Evidence 702, as the incomplete reports will not aid the trier of fact.” See Motion  at 9.
Pursuant to the Local Rules, “[a] party must make full and complete disclosure as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) and L.U. Civ. R. 26(a)(2)(D) no later than the time specified
in the case management order . . . . Absent a finding of just cause, failure to make full expert
disclosures by the expert designation deadline is grounds for prohibiting introduction of that
evidence at trial.” L.U. Civ. R. 26(a)(2). The expert report must contain:
a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis
and reasons for them;
the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in
the previous 10 years;
a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness
testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and
a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
Plaintiff, however, does not point to any deficiency in Defendant’s expert designations or
make any specific argument that Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 26(a)(2) or Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(2). Instead, Plaintiff takes issue with the following language found in Defendant’s
[Expert] reserves the right to supplement or amend his opinions based on
inspections conducted or testimony that may develop between now and the trial of
this matter as well as any testimony or information that may be developed at trial.
See Exhibit [31-2].
Plaintiff argues that “[a]ny attempt by Defendant to provide additional ‘final’ expert
reports or disclosures after November 10, 2016, should be stricken from the record and the
experts disqualified from testifying due to non-compliance with the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Order of this Court.” See  at 5. However,
Plaintiff’s concern regarding a supposed future supplemental report is premature.
The following factors are considered in determining whether good cause exists to allow a
party to use supplemental expert reports that were produced after the court’s deadlines: “‘(1) the
explanation for the failure to [submit a complete report on time]; (2) the importance of the
testimony; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the testimony; and (4) the availability of a
continuance to cure such prejudice.’” Reliance Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co.,
110 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997) (brackets in original) quoting Geiserman v. MacDonlad, 893
F.2d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 1990)). Plainly, the Court cannot apply these factors without a
supplemental report to consider. Plaintiff may object if Defendant actually attempts to
supplement its expert reports.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court should strike Defendant’s expert
designations. Additionally, Plaintiff’s request that the Court strike any supposed future
supplemental report is premature.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Expert
Designations  is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 16th day of December, 2016.
s/Michael T. Parker
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?