Harris v. Corizon et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 49 Joint MOTION to Strike and Preclude Plaintiff's Expert Robert L. Ward, DDS filed by Defendant Corizon, LLC, Defendant Corizon Health, Inc., Defendant R. Eric Bessey, Defendant Corizon, Inc., Defenda nt Ernest W. Jackson motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART..IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall have until February 1, 2016, to submit a verified statement of attorneys fees reasonably incurred in seeking Dr. Wards deposition and in bringing their motion to strike.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/21/16. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JIM HARRIS, JR.,
CORIZON, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-CV-26 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the joint motion of the Corizon defendants
to strike plaintiff’s expert, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2). Plaintiff has filed a
response in opposition and the issues are fully briefed.
The Case Management Order entered in this case [Doc. #44] required
plaintiff to designate his expert witnesses by November 12, 2015, and to produce
his experts for deposition by December 15, 2015. With defendants’ consent,
plaintiff obtained an extension of time to disclose his experts until November 19,
2015, on which date he designated Robert L. Ward, DDS.
On November 21, 2015, counsel for defendants made an initial request for
dates on which Dr. Ward would be available for his deposition. [Doc. #50-1].
Counsel for plaintiff did not respond to that request or to the subsequent requests
made in December.
[Docs. ##50-2 through 50-4]. It was not until January 8,
2016, that counsel for plaintiff called defense counsel to request an extension of
time to produce Dr. Ward for deposition. Defendants filed the instant motion to
strike on January 11, 2016. On January 14, 2016, plaintiff belatedly provided
defendants with several possible dates on which Dr. Ward would be available for
deposition. [Doc. #53-2].
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives the district court the
authority to set case management deadlines and to impose sanctions for their
violation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f). A court is permitted to exclude untimely evidence
unless the failure to disclose was either harmless or substantially justified. Trost v.
Trek Bicycle Corp., 162 F.3d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir. 1998) (affirming district court’s
order excluding plaintiff’s expert for failure to timely disclose).
Plaintiff first argues that defendants’ motion must be denied under a
provision of the Case Management Order which requires the parties to file discovery
motions “no more than fifteen (15) days following the event . . . that is the subject
of the motion,” unless good cause is shown for the delay. Case Management Order,
§ I(3)(h). Plaintiff argues that the 15-day period was triggered on December 15,
2015 (the deadline for producing Dr. Ward for deposition) and that defendants’
motion (filed on January 11, 2016) was thus untimely. Defendants argue that the
15-day period began on December 30, 2015, when they made their final attempt to
secure dates for Dr. Ward’s deposition. The purpose of the 15-day limit is to
facilitate timely resolution of discovery disputes that would otherwise impede the
parties’ ability to complete discovery, file dispositive motions, and prepare for trial.
It is not intended to reward a party who ignores or stonewalls opposing counsel’s
attempts to comply with the Case Management Order. Assuming without deciding
that December 15 was the triggering date, the Court finds that defendants’
repeated efforts to obtain deposition dates from plaintiff satisfy the good-cause
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, alternatively argues that his failure to comply
with the Court’s deadlines is substantially justified because he was transferred to a
new unit in mid-November 2015 and lost access to all his litigation documents.
Plaintiff does not explain how his inability to access documents prevented his
counsel from making Dr. Ward available for deposition. But, accepting plaintiff’s
justification at face value, the appropriate course of action would have been to seek
a brief extension of time of the deposition deadline. Certainly, there is no
justification for the failure of plaintiff’s counsel to communicate with defense
counsel in a timely fashion.
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the deadlines for expert disclosure set forth
in the Case Management Order was not justified and thus a sanction is warranted.
However, because plaintiff has identified dates when Dr. Ward is available for
deposition, striking plaintiff’s expert is more extreme than necessary to address any
prejudice caused by plaintiff’s noncompliance with the Case Management Order.
Instead, the expert discovery deadlines will be extended. In addition, the Court will
order plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendants’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in
seeking Dr. Ward’s deposition and bringing this motion. See Rule 16(f)(2) (court
must order party or attorney “to pay the reasonable expenses — including
attorney’s fees — incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule, unless the
noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ joint motion to strike [Doc. #49]
is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall have until February 1,
2016, to submit a verified statement of attorney’s fees reasonably incurred in
seeking Dr. Ward’s deposition and in bringing their motion to strike.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 21st day of January, 2016.
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?