Davis v. Hinds County, Mississippi et al

Filing 74

ORDER granting 45 Motion to Strike; granting 68 Motion to Modify or Amend the Case Management Order ; finding as moot 52 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; and finding as moot 55 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/17/18 (RBM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
CHAKAKHAN R. DAVIS
vs.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-cv-674-DPJ-FKB

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

DEFENDANTS

Before the Court are four motions: Hinds County’s Motion to Strike Expert Designation
[45], and Davis’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery [52], Motion for Extension
of Time [55], and Motion to Modify or Amend the Case Management Order [68]. For the reasons
described herein, the Court grants motions [45] and [68], and finds as moot motions [52] and [55].
The Court held an in-court hearing on these matters on December 19, 2017. The Court has
also reviewed Plaintiff’s expert witness designation filed on August 1, 2017, see [42], and both
parties’ briefing on the instant motions. Having done so, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s expert
witness designation fails to include the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).
Specifically, Plaintiff’s designations of Marvin Lucas and Vanita Gupta are deficient for failure to
produce a written report, prepared and signed by the witness, which includes the information
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i)-(vi). In her designations, Plaintiff refers to the remaining
witnesses as “medical experts,” but it is unclear to the undersigned whether each and every one of
the witnesses actually treated Plaintiff. Regardless, Plaintiff’s designation of the “medical experts”
is deficient for failure to provide the “subject matter on which each witness is expected to present
exert testimony at trial” and “a summary of the facts and opinions to which [each] witness is
expected to testify.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a0(2)(C)(i) and (ii). Further, as to any of these “medical
experts,” who have not actually treated Plaintiff related to claims in this case, Plaintiff’s

designations are also deficient for failure to produce the written report required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B). Accordingly, Hinds County’s Motion to Strike Expert Designations [45] is hereby
granted.
However, the Court also finds that Plaintiff’s expert designation deadline should also be
extended and that she should be given an opportunity to designate experts in compliance with the
rules. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) states, “A schedule may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge's consent.” The Fifth Circuit has held that a district court is to consider
four factors in determining whether good cause exists to amend a scheduling order and extend an
expert designation deadline. The four factors are: “(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 & Expl. Co., 110 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997).
The Court finds that Davis’s explanation at the December 19, 2017, hearing that any
deficiency in her expert designation was the result of her proceeding pro se has merit. The Court
finds that the potential testimony of Davis’s expert witnesses may be important. It further finds
that an extension of the discovery period would not prejudice Hinds County, and that a continuance
is available to allow the parties to complete discovery once Davis has had another opportunity to
designate her experts.
Therefore, Davis’s Motion to Modify or Amend the Case Management Order [68] is also
hereby granted. Because the Court grants motion [68] amending the case management order,
Plaintiff’s other requests for discovery extensions, [52] and [55], are moot. The Court amends the
dates contained in the Case Management Order as follows:

2

This action is set for a jury trial during a two-week term of court beginning on December
3, 2018, at 9:00 AM in Jackson, Mississippi, before United States District Judge Daniel P. Jordan,
III. (Any conflicts with this trial date must be submitted in writing to the trial judge immediately
upon receipt of this Order). The pretrial conference is set on November 9, 2018, at 9:00 AM in
Jackson, Mississippi, before United States District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III. Plaintiff’s experts
must be designated by March 20, 2018. Defendant’s experts must be designated by April 19, 2018.
All discovery must be completed by June 19, 2018. All dispositive motions and Daubert-type
motions challenging another party’s expert must be filed by July 3, 2018. The deadline for motions
in limine is fourteen days before the pretrial conference; the deadline for responses is seven days
before the pretrial conference.
SO ORDERED, this the 17th of January, 2018.

_/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3