Staufenbiel v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. 38 ) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with an amended disclosure that complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) on or before February 3, 2015. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/27/15. (JWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JONATHAN STAUFENBIEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-02571-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert
Disclosures as Non-Compliant (Doc. 38). Plaintiff responded (Doc. 40). For the following
reasons, the Court will grant the motion in part.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s disclosures do not comply with Rule 26 because
Plaintiff fails to identify the area of expertise or specialty for each of the 74 listed individuals and
fails to mention the facts or specific opinions each witness is expected to offer. He requests that
the Court strike the expert disclosures and prohibit Plaintiff from offering testimony or other
information from the disclosed individuals at trial. Plaintiff responds that his disclosures comply
with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) as they provide a sufficient description of the subject matter and a
summary of the facts and opinions upon which the expert is expected to testify. However, upon
review of the disclosure (Doc. 39-1) and after conference with the Parties (Doc. 42), the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s disclosure does not comply with Federal Rules. Specifically, the disclosure
fails to state with sufficient specificity (1) the subject matter on which each witness is expected

to present evidence and (2) a summary of the facts and opinions to which each witness is
expected to testify. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(i), (ii). See also Anderson v. Bristol, Inc., 936 F.
Supp. 2d 1039, 1059 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 25, 2013) (“District courts have repeatedly held that a
mere citation to records fails to satisfy the requirements of [Rule 26(a)(2)(C)].”)
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 38) is GRANTED
in part. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with an amended disclosure that complies with Rule
26(a)(2)(C) on or before February 3, 2015.

Dated this 27th day of January, 2015.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-