Joseph v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
Filing
125
ORDER denying 65 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order 62 and granting 76 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/8/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ).
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
STEPHEN JOSEPH,
8
9
2:12-CV-798 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),
10
v.
11
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
12
13
Defendant(s).
14
15
ORDER
16
Presently before the court is a motion to reconsider filed by plaintiff Stephen Joseph
17
(“Joseph”). (Doc. #65). Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”) filed a response
18
in opposition, (doc. #72), which it later supplemented, (doc. # 75).
19
Also before the court is Hartford’s motion to strike the expert portion of Joseph’s
20
supplemental disclosure. (Doc. # 76). Joseph filed a response in opposition, (doc. # 86), and
21
Hartford filed a reply, (doc # 91).
22
I.
Background
23
This action centers upon an auto insurance dispute between Joseph and Hartford. Joseph
24
alleges that he was injured in a car accident and Hartford refuses to grant him the full amount to
25
which he is entitled under his underinsured motorist policy.
26
Joseph did not disclose any expert witnesses prior to the stipulated disclosure deadline,
27
October 3, 2013. On January 31, 2014, Hartford moved to exclude any previously undisclosed
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
expert witnesses due to plaintiff’s failure to meet the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil
2
Procedure 26. Joseph opposed the motion, stating that he intended to call two of his treating
3
physicians as non-retained experts at trial. At a hearing on the issue, Magistrate Judge Hoffman
4
ordered that the expert witnesses be excluded, after finding that the failure to disclose was neither
5
substantially justified nor harmless.
6
In the instant motion, Joseph argues that Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s order was clearly
7
erroneous and contrary to law.
8
II.
Legal standard
9
Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court review
10
under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R.
11
Civ. P. 72(a); D. Nev. R. 3-1(a) (“A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a
12
magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the
13
magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). “This subsection would also
14
enable the court to delegate some of the more administrative functions to a magistrate, such as . . .
15
assistance in the preparation of plans to achieve prompt disposition of cases in the court.” Gomez
16
v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869 (1989).
17
“A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
18
body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
19
committed.” United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). “An
20
order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of
21
procedure.” Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc. v. Kemet Blue Powder Corp., 2012 WL 3884939,
22
at *3 (D. Nev. 2012).
23
A magistrate’s pretrial order issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is not subject to de novo
24
review, and the reviewing court “may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding
25
court.” Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).
26
...
27
...
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
III.
Discussion
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides, “If a party fails to provide information
3
or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) . . . the party is not allowed to use that information
4
or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was
5
substantially justified or is harmless.” Joseph argues that Magistrate Judge Hoffman clearly erred
6
in finding that the failure to disclose the non-retained experts was neither substantially justified nor
7
harmless.
8
a. Substantially justified
9
Joseph’s sole argument as to why the failure to disclose was substantially justified is that his
10
attorney had not tried any cases in federal court since the 2010 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil
11
Procedure 26. This amendment created disclosure requirements for non-retained expert witnesses,
12
such as treating physicians, who were not otherwise required to prepare a formal report. Prior to this
13
change, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not contain specific disclosure requirements
14
regarding non-retained experts.
15
Nevertheless, Joseph’s argument does not persuade the court that the failure to disclose was
16
substantially justified. All parties practicing in federal court are responsible for knowing and
17
adhering to the court’s procedural requirements. In this case, Joseph allowed more than four months
18
to elapse after the expert-disclosure deadline before giving any indication that he intended to call two
19
of his treating physicians as non-retained experts. Thus, the court finds no error in Magistrate Judge
20
Hoffman’s ruling that the failure to disclose was not substantially justified.
21
b. Harmless
22
Joseph asserts that Magistrate Judge Hoffman clearly erred in finding the failure to disclose
23
was not harmless. Joseph urges the court to consider the factors laid out in Olaya v. Wal-Mart Store,
24
Inc., 2012 WL 3262875 at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 7, 2012). These factors are: (1) prejudice or surprise
25
to the party who the evidence is offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the prejudice; (3) the
26
likelihood of disruption of the trial; and (4) bad faith or willfulness involved in not timely disclosing
27
the evidence. Id.
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
1
Joseph claims that there was no prejudice or surprise to Hartford because Joseph disclosed
2
a list of more than 60 medical providers and over 1400 pages of medical records prior to the
3
deadline. However, Joseph neglected to indicate which, if any, of the medical providers would be
4
used as expert witnesses. In order to prepare for trial, one of Hartford’s retained experts reviewed
5
and analyzed the entirety of the 1400 pages. Because Hartford examined all of the records, Joseph
6
argues, there was no prejudice or surprise when Joseph later declared that two of his treating
7
physicians would testify as non-retained experts.
8
Joseph’s reasoning would have the court punish Hartford for its own diligence. It was not
9
Hartford’s responsibility to scour through more than 1400 pages of medical records in order to
10
predict whom Joseph might call as an expert witness. Though Hartford did examine all of the
11
records, it was prejudiced by the fact that plaintiff’s failure to disclose created the need to do so.
12
13
Magistrate Judge Hoffman ruled that plaintiff’s failure created enough prejudice to warrant
the exclusion of the expert witnesses. The court finds that this ruling was not clearly erroneous.
14
c. Bad Faith
15
Joseph argues that Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s order was contrary to law because exclusion
16
of the witnesses would be akin to summary judgment in Hartford’s favor. Joseph argues the court
17
may not exclude these witnesses unless there is a finding of bad faith.
18
Hartford urges the court to rely on Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d
19
1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). The Yeti court recognized that exclusion of the defendants’ damages
20
expert would make it “almost impossible” for the defendants to rebut the plaintiffs’ damages
21
allegations, but held that exclusion was an appropriate remedy for failing to fulfill expert disclosure
22
requirements, without requiring proof of bad faith. Id. Therefore the fact that Magistrate Judge
23
Hoffman, without a finding of bad faith, ruled that plaintiff’s failure warranted the exclusion of his
24
non-retained experts was not in error.
25
...
26
...
27
...
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-4-
1
2
3
IV.
Conclusion
The court finds that Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law.
4
Accordingly,
5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Joseph’s motion to
6
reconsider, (doc. # 65), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hartford’s motion to strike, (doc. #76), is GRANTED.
8
DATED August 8, 2014.
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-5-
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?