Hinkebein v. Hopler et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Lucas Hinkebein's motion for leave to supplement (#50) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Lucas Hinkebein's motion to file the report under seal (#51) is GRANTED. IT I S FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not rule on plaintiff Lucas Hinkebein's motion for sanctions (#23) until defendants have a chance to meaningfully address this expert and his opinions. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 2/16/2018. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LUCAS HINKEBEIN, by and through
his guardian and conservator,
MARK HINKEBEIN
Plaintiff,
v.
GAVIN HOPLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-CV-1655-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Lucas Hinkebein’s motion for leave to
supplement (#50) his motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. In early December
2017, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence (#23), claiming
defendants destroyed nearly all the physical evidence from the shooting at issue in the
case. In opposing the motion for sanctions, some of the defendants highlighted that
plaintiff had not submitted expert testimony to support his motion. Now, plaintiff seeks
leave to supplement his reply brief (#40) with an expert witness report. He asks to file
the report under seal (#51), which the defendants have not opposed, and the time for
doing so has passed.
Defendants oppose the motion for several reasons. They note that they received
the expert report just one day before plaintiff filed his motion for leave, thus they have
not had a chance to (1) meaningfully analyze the report, (2) depose the expert, or (3)
challenge the expert’s credentials and opinions in a Daubert motion. Without first
1

deposing the expert, defendants claim they cannot fully respond to his opinions. Thus,
defendants ask the Court to defer any ruling on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions until after
it rules on defendants’ upcoming Daubert motion.
Given the current posture of the case, the motion for sanctions is premature. Of
course, the Court will eventually address the motion, but only after defendants have a
chance to meaningfully address this expert and his opinions. Defendants plan to do so in
a Daubert motion, and after ruling on that, it likely will be appropriate to rule on
plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Lucas Hinkebein’s motion for leave to
supplement (#50) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Lucas Hinkebein’s motion to file the
report under seal (#51) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not rule on plaintiff Lucas
Hinkebein’s motion for sanctions (#23) until defendants have a chance to meaningfully
address this expert and his opinions.

Dated this

16th

day of February 2018.

_______________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2