Freteluco vs Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc.

Filing 62

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 52 MOTION to Strike/Exclude Defendant's Rebuttal Expert Lewis M. Etcoff, Ph.D. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 1/8/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Main Document 62 corrected, replaced and NEF regenerated on 1/8/2021) (DRS).

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 12

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

ANNA MARIE FRETELUCO,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8

Case No. 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY

v.

ORDER

SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS,
INC., a foreign corporation; DOES 1-10; ROE
CORPORAITONS 1-10; inclusive,

9

Defendants.

10
11

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike/Exclude Defendant’s Expert Lewis

12

M. Etcoff, Ph.d. (ECF No. 52), the Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike/Exclude Defendant’s

13

Expert Lewis M. Etcoff, Ph.d. (ECF No. 58), and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of her Motion to

14

Strike/Exclude Defendant’s Expert Lewis M. Etcoff, Ph.d. (ECF No. 61).

15

I.

Background

16

On April 20, 2020, at a hearing on two motions (see Transcript at ECF No. 36), and on June

17

29, 2020, on a written order (ECF No. 46), the Court Ordered and affirmed that the discovery period

18

was reopened for a 90 day period allowing Defendant time to retain and disclose rebuttal experts

19

and an Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 35. Dr. Lewis Etcoff

20

was originally designated by Defendant as an IME pursuant to Rule 35 for purposes of his proposed

21

neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff. ECF Nos. 40 and 44. On July 20, 2020, Defendant

22

timely disclosed and produced a report from Dr. Etcoff identifying him as a rebuttal expert. ECF

23

No. 48-3 at 2-33. 1 In response to Plaintiff’s instant Motion to Strike, Defendant again identified Dr.

24

Etcoff as a “rebuttal expert.” ECF No. 58. This distinction is important because Plaintiff’s Motion

25
26
27
1

28

The parties disagree regarding whether the disclosure of Dr. Etcoff was timely. Because July 19, 2020 was a
Sunday, the Court finds Dr. Etcoff’s disclosure on July 20, 2020 was timely.

1

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 12

1

to exclude Dr. Etcoff is based on the premise that, as a rebuttal expert, Dr. Etcoff’s testimony must

2

be limited to contradicting or rebutting evidence presented by an initially disclosed expert. ECF No.

3

52 at 6 (and citations therein).

4

Thus, Plaintiff avers that Dr. Etcoff cannot rebut any diagnosis or opinions given by

5

Plaintiff’s treating physician Dr. Fazzini because Dr. Fazzini was not designated as either a retained

6

or non-retained expert pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(2)(B) or (C). ECF No. 52 at 7-8. Plaintiff

7

further argues that Dr. Etcoff cannot be offered to rebut any opinions offered by Dr. Roitman, who

8

was designated as a retained expert, because Dr. Roitman offered no opinion on Plaintiff’s

9

psychiatric diagnosis. ECF Nos. 48-1 at 15 and 52 at 8. 2

10

Plaintiff’s Initial Expert Disclosures states that Dr. Roitman “will testify as a retained treating

11

expert in his capacity as a medical physician who provided medical care to Plaintiff, [sic] following

12

the subject fall.” ECF No. 48-1 at 15. The disclosure goes on to state that Dr. Roitman (misidentified

13

as Dr. Garber at id.) will “give expert opinions regarding the treatment of Plaintiff, the necessity of

14

the treatment rendered, the causation of the necessity for past and future medical treatment, his expert

15

opinion as to past and future restrictions of activities, including work activities, caused by the fall,

16

… the cost of past and future medical care and whether those medical costs fall within the ordinary

17

and customary charges for similar medical care and treatment, and whether Plaintiff has a diminished

18

work life expectancy, work capacity, and/or life expectancy as a result of the fall.” Id. Plaintiff

19

attached a single page letter written by Dr. Roitman to Plaintiff’s counsel, dated December 15, 2019,

20

to her Initial Expert Disclosure. ECF No. 48-2 at 3. As explained below, this disclosure does not

21

meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(a)(2)(B) for retained experts. Nevertheless, Dr.

22

Roitman’s letter states, in pertinent part, that:

23
24
25
26
27
28

[b]ased on Ms. Freteluco’s history and mental status examination, she hasn’t been
doing well. … As she presents, Ms. Freteluco’s symptoms can be explained as
2
Plaintiff attaches no exhibits to her instant Motion (ECF No. 52), but refers the Court to her previously filed
motion at ECF No. 48, which seeks to strike another of Defendant’s experts. ECF No. 48 is 363 pages long of which
approximately 345 pages are exhibits. ECF No. 48 is neither indexed nor searchable in violation of Local Rule IC 2-2
titled “Filer Responsibilities When Electronically Filing Document,” and Local Rule IA 10-3(d) titled “Exhibits.” LR
IA 2-2 states in section (a)(1): “To be filed in the electronic filing system, all documents must be in a searchable Portable
Document Format (PDF), except that exhibits and attachments to a filed document that cannot be imaged in a searchable
format may be scanned.” LR IA 10-3(d) states: “An index of exhibits must be provided.” Plaintiff is strongly advised
to become familiar with and follow Local Rules.

2

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 12

1
2
3

manifestations of an acquired, accident-related neurocognitive disorder that unifies
her complaints that onset after the fall at Smith’s. More workup will be necessary
to identify the nature of her disorders and disabilities more clearly. Therefore at
this juncture, I cannot offer an opinion regarding Ms. Freteluco’s psychiatric
diagnosis but will be better prepared to do so once more medical data is available.

4

ECF No. 48-2 at 3. Plaintiff further discloses that Dr. Roitman “will testify as a rebuttal expert to

5

any medically designated defense experts in which he is qualified.” ECF No. 48-1 at 16.

6

Plaintiff contends that Dr. Etcoff’s report must be struck because he offers “new diagnoses

7

that … [Plaintiff] is malingering …, has a somatic symptom disorder …, physical symptoms that

8

causes [sic] major distress and/or problems functioning and that … [Plaintiff] has a … history of

9

physical, sexual and psychological abuse in childhood, and spousal physical and sexual violence.”

10

ECF No. 52 at 9. Plaintiff calls all of this “brand-new diagnoses” that do not contradict any of Dr.

11

Roitman’s opinions “because Dr. Roitman opined he could not offer any opinions.” Id. Plaintiff

12

complains that Dr. Etcoff’s opinions are irrelevant because he did not link his opinions to Plaintiff’s

13

“psychiatric state.”

14

exaggeration of “her cognitive and motor difficulties” must be struck because even if Dr. Roitman

15

opined on Plaintiff’s “cognitive state, he did not[] opine on her physical condition.” Id. Plaintiff

16

argues Dr. Roitman could not have opined on Plaintiff’s physical state because he did not do a

17

physical examination of Plaintiff. Id. Instead, he “reviewed her psychiatric questionnaire.” Id.

18

Thus, Plaintiff claims that Dr. Etcoff’s opinions on Plaintiff’s “motor functions are improper initial

19

opinions which must be excluded.” Id.

Id.

Plaintiff also argues that Dr. Etcoff’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s

20

In opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff made late and

21

unsupported disclosures of estimated future medical expenses, that have never been adequately

22

explained or justified. ECF No. 58 at 3. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff attempted to prevent

23

the Rule 35 independent medical exam of Plaintiff requiring court intervention. Id. Plaintiff points

24

out that Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Garber, stated Plaintiff needed neuropsychological testing, which Dr.

25

Etcoff did as a Rule 35 IME, but that Plaintiff now claims the report by Dr. Etcoff is not rebuttal

26

even though Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Roitman, responded to Dr. Etcoff’s report. Id. at 4 citing ECF

27

No. 58-2 at 2-32 (an August 26, 2020, 29 page letter from Dr. Roitman to Plaintiff rebutting Dr.

28

Etcoff’s report). Defendant also complains that Plaintiff has “dozens” of healthcare providers who
3

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 4 of 12

1

may testify at trial, but failed to describe the testimony each will provide with specificity. Id. at 4-

2

5. This problem, Defendant states, is “compounded by” Plaintiff’s identification of medical experts

3

that include Dr. Roitman (a retained medical expert, ECF No. 48-1 at 15), Dr. Milford (a “non-

4

retained expert,” id. at 4), Dr. Garber (a retained treating expert, id.), and Dr. Filler (a retained

5

treating expert, id. at 7). Defendant then provides long quotes from Plaintiff’s Initial Expert

6

Disclosure that describe the testimony of Dr. Roitman and Dr. Garber (ECF No. 58 at 5-6), while

7

providing much shorter descriptions of the proposed testimony to be offered by Drs. Milford and

8

Filler. Id. at 6-7.

9

Defendant argues that when the Court denied Defendant’s motion seeking to exclude future

10

damages, Defendant “was left with 90 days” to retain an expert and IME. Id. at 7. Defendant then

11

spends time discussing how Defendant first believed Plaintiff was going to retain its own expert to

12

conduct neuropsychological testing, then figured out Plaintiff was choosing not to do so after the

13

Court granted Defendant time to obtain an IME, and concluding that it is “patently unfair for Plaintiff

14

to refuse to specify her own damages and then seek to exclude Defendant’s evidence because she

15

recently decided upon some alternative, but undisclosed, strategy for claiming future medical

16

expenses.” Id. at 7-8.

17

Moving to the issue of rebuttal, Defendant states Dr. Etcoff properly rebuts Plaintiff’s

18

expert(s), albeit without identifying which expert he rebuts, referencing, without a cite, the Court’s

19

June 29, 2020 Order in which the Court rejected Plaintiff’s contention that Dr. Etcoff was not a

20

rebuttal expert because “Plaintiff ha[d]… not retained a neuropsychologist.” ECF No. 42 at 4.

21

Defendant states that Dr. Etcoff, “having … perform[ed] neuropsychological testing,” is able “to

22

determine whether, in fact, there is any evidence supporting Plaintiff’s vague claim of brain injuries

23

related to a slip and fall accident.” ECF No. 58 at 9. Finally, Plaintiff states that if the Court is

24

inclined to consider Plaintiff’s Motion, less severe sanctions are available such as staying “a decision

25

pending a motion in limine on the actual contents of SMITH’S expert report, or direct SMITH’S

26

rebuttal expert to limit all testimony and conclusions in his report to those that specifically rebut

27

conclusions made by Plaintiff’s treating physicians and experts … .” Id. at 10.

28
4

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 5 of 12

1

On Reply, Plaintiff states that Plaintiff’s counsel drafted the “testimony summaries” of

2

Plaintiff’s experts and, therefore, Dr. Etcoff cannot rebut these summaries. ECF No. 61 at 2-3.

3

Plaintiff provides no case law supporting this contention. Plaintiff reiterates that she did not

4

designate Dr. Fazzini as an expert and, thus, he cannot be rebutted; and, Plaintiff argues that Dr.

5

Etcoff’s report goes “beyond mere rebuttal when he diagnosed Plaintiff with ‘(1) Malingering [of

6

Neurocognitive Dysfunction]; (2) Somatic Symptom Disorder, persistent, moderate; (3) Past History

7

of Physical Abuse in Childhood; (4) Past History of Psychological Abuse in Childhood; (5) Past

8

History of Sexual Abuse in Childhood; (6) Past History of Spouse Violence, Physical; and (7) Past

9

History of Spouse Violence, Sexual.’” Id. at 4 (with no cite to Dr. Etcoff’s report). Plaintiff then

10

contends less drastic sanctions are not appropriate because “the failure to disclose information

11

required by Rule 26(as) [sic]” was not harmless or substantially justified given Defendant’s failure

12

to disclose Dr. Etcoff as an initial expert. Id. at 4-5. Next Plaintiff argues (despite the absence of

13

any motion on this issue) that the Court must still decide whether Dr. Etcoff’s “report might be

14

admissible as that of an initial expert.” Id. at 5.

15

II.

Discussion

16

A.

The Law Pertaining to Retained and Non-Retained Experts.

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) delineate the requirements for retained

18

and non-retained experts. Rule 26(a)(2)(B) plainly state that “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or

19

ordered by the court, … if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert

20

testimony” the witness must prepare and sign a written report that includes: “(i) a complete statement

21

of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data

22

considered by the witness in forming them; (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or

23

support them; (iv) the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the

24

previous 10 years; (v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness

25

testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and (vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for

26

the study and testimony in the case.” In comparison, if a witness is not specifically retained to

27

provide expert testimony, such as a treating physician, but is still offered by a party to present expert

28

testimony, the witness need not provide a written report, but the party who intends to present the
5

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 6 of 12

1

witness must make a disclosure that includes: “(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected

2

to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; and (ii) a summary of the facts

3

and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.”

4

Rule 26(a)(2)(C) was “added to mandate summary disclosures of the opinions to be offered

5

by the expert . . . and . . . the facts supporting those opinions.” Flonnes v. Property & Cas. Ins. Co.

6

of Hartford, Case No. 2:12-cv-01065-APG, 2013 WL 2285224, at *2 (D. Nev. May 22, 2013)

7

(citation and internal quote marks omitted). As explained in Flonnes, “a summary is ordinarily

8

understood to be an abstract, abridgement, or compendium.” 2013 WL 2285224, at *3 (citation

9

omitted). As stated in Alfaro v. D. Las Vegas Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02190-MMD-PAL, 2016 WL

10

4473421, at * 11 (D. Nev. Aug. 24, 2016), “[a] treating physician is still a percipient witness of the

11

treatment rendered and may testify as a fact witness and also provide expert testimony under Federal

12

Evidence Rules 702, 703, and 705. However, with respect to expert opinions offered, a Rule

13

26(a)(2)(C) disclosure is now required.” Further, “‘when a treating physician is transformed into an

14

expert offering testimony on matters beyond the treatment rendered for purposes of Rule 26

15

disclosures,’ a report is required.” Langermann v. Property & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford, Case No.

16

2:14-cv-00982-RCJ-PAL, 2015 WL 4724512, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 10. 20145) citing Goodman v.

17

Staples, The Office Superstore, 644 F.3d 817, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff’s “boilerplate

18

conclusory description of their anticipated testimony [of a non-retained treating physician expert] is

19

woefully inadequate.” Langermann, 2015 WL 4724512, at *5.

20

When an expert is offered to rebut the testimony of either a retained or non-retained medical

21

expert, the “rebuttal opinion is limited to contradicting or rebutting an opinion set forth in the

22

opponent’s initial expert disclosure. … The phrase ‘same subject matter’ should not be read broadly,

23

because if it were to encompass any possible topic that relates to the subject matter at issue, such

24

interpretation will blur the distinction between affirmative expert and rebuttal expert and have unjust

25

results.” Taylor v. Northern Inyo Hospital, Case No. 1:15-cv-001607-LJO-JLT, 2017 WL 1273840,

26

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2017) (internal citations and quote marks omitted).

27

Tuuamalemalo v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dep’t., Case No. 2:16-cv-00619-JAD-VCF, 2017

28

WL 1550235, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 28, 2017):
6

As stated in

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 7 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) governs the content of rebuttal
experts and states that a rebuttal expert’s testimony is limited to testimony that
“contradict[s]” or “rebut[s]” evidence on the same subject matter identified by
another party.[] … This means that an expert’s rebuttal testimony may not introduce
new, alternative or previously unconsidered theories. See United States v. Luschen,
614 F.2d 1164, 1170 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939 (1980) (“‘The function
of rebuttal is to explain, repel, counteract or disprove evidence of the adverse party,’
and the decision to admit rebuttal testimony ‘is entrusted to the sound discretion of
the district court.’”); see also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(stating that rebuttal expert reports must include “a showing of facts supporting the
opposite conclusion”). Rebuttal testimony must address the same subject matter
and refute the previous expert’s conclusions regarding that subject matter.
(Some internal citations omitted.)

9

Thus, an expert report “may not advance new arguments for the first time in a reply expert

10

report.” Kleen Prods. LLC v. Int’l Paper, 306 F.R.D. 585, 591 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (internal citation

11

omitted). Such reports “may cite new evidence and data so long as the new evidence and data is

12

offered to directly contradict or rebut the opposing party’s expert.” Helios Software, LLC v.

13

SpectorSoft Corp., Case No. 12-081-LPS, 2014 WL 4796111, at *3 (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2014) (internal

14

citations omitted); see also Kleen Prods. LLC, 305 F.R.D. at 591 (where reply report’s additional

15

analysis was in direct response to criticisms from opposing expert and provided further support for

16

original opinions, the reply report was admissible). Moreover, consistent with Kleen Prods., LLC,

17

this Court previously stated:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

The fact that Plaintiff’s initial experts did not do testing is not a basis to exclude
Defendant’s expert because he is allegedly not rebutting conclusions reached by the
opposing party’s experts. In fact, “[s]trict adherence to a rule” that would require
a rebuttal expert to rely solely on material used by an initial, opposing expert “is
inadvisable.” Van Alfen v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. CV 11-08120
JVS(FMOx), 2012 WL 12930456, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012). Further
“regardless of whether it could have been included in the expert’s initial report,
rebuttal expert opinion is proper where it ‘explains, repels, counteracts or disproves
evidence of the adverse party.” Id. citing Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457
F.3d 749, 759 (8th Cir. 2006).
ECF No. 46 at 9.

25

Given the above, the questions that must be answered are whether (1) Dr. Etcoff’s report

26

goes beyond rebutting the opinions of Plaintiff’s experts to possible topics that relates to the subject

27

matters at issue, but which are not addressed by Plaintiff’s retained or non-retained experts, and (2)

28
7

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 8 of 12

1

Dr. Etcoff may offer rebuttal to medical opinions offered by Dr. Fazzini or any other physician or

2

health care provider listed as a percipient witness by Plaintiff.

3

B.

4

As stated above, Plaintiff, who seeks to strike Dr. Etcoff as an expert, did not include a copy

5

of his report as an exhibit with her instant Motion. ECF No. 52. Instead, the Court had to find Dr.

6

Etcoff’s report like a pig searching for truffles, which is not the Court’s role nor should it be any

7

parties’ expectation that the Court will do so. Krause v. Nevada Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. 2:12-cv-

8

00342-JCM-CWH, 2014 WL 99178, at * 2 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2014) (“judges are not like pigs, hunting

9

for truffles in briefs. Nor are they archaeologists searching for treasure. Put simply, the Court is not

10
11

Analysis of Dr. Etcoff’s Report.

obligated to paw over files ... in order to make a party’s claim.”) (internal citation omitted).
Nonetheless, at ECF No. 48-3 at 6, the Court found Plaintiff’s submission of Dr. Etcoff’s

12

expert report.

The report includes a list of the evidence Dr. Etcoff reviewed, the tests he

13

administered, his behavioral observations of Plaintiff, his interviews of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s test

14

scores, validity results, diagnostic probabilities, diagnostic impressions, a case summary, and other

15

titled sections. Id. at 6-33. The report also states that Dr. Etcoff was retained to evaluate Plaintiff

16

“and to rebut Dr. Enrico Fazzini’s neurological opinions and Dr. Norton Roitman’s psychiatric

17

opinions … .” Id. at 6.

18

While Plaintiff argues Dr. Fazzini was not designated as an expert, and therefore Dr. Etcoff

19

cannot rebut any of Dr. Fazzini’s opinions, this bright line rule suggested by Plaintiff is not quite

20

accurate. As the Court thoroughly explained in Alfaro, 2016 WL 4473421, at *11, “before the 2010

21

amendments to Rule 26(a)(2), the majority of courts held that treating physicians providing opinions

22

on causation, diagnosis, prognosis, and the extent of disability were not required to provide Rule

23

26(a)(2)(B) reports if their opinions were formed during the course of treating their patients. … The

24

2010 amendments to Rule 26(a)(2) now mandate that non-retained experts, like treating medical

25

providers, who offer opinions based on their ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training or education’

26

under Federal Evidence Rules 702, 703, or 705, make the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2)(C).”

27

Thus, to the extent Dr. Fazzini, or any other health care provider disclosed by Plaintiff, intends or

28

has offered an opinion based on knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, as opposed to
8

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 9 of 12

1

being presented as a percipient fact witness, Plaintiff was required to make timely appropriate

2

disclosures and Dr. Etcoff is free to rebut such opinions unless such opinions, if any, are struck in

3

the future.

4

Specifically, with respect to Dr. Fazzini, Dr. Etcoff says nothing other than noting a review

5

of his records. Further, neither Plaintiff’s instant Motion (ECF No. 52), nor her prior motion that

6

includes 345 pages of exhibits, offers Dr. Fazzini’s records to the Court. Plaintiff also does not

7

summarize Dr. Fazzini’s findings except to state that he is Plaintiff’s treating doctor who apparently

8

diagnosed Plaintiff with an accident-related neurocognitive disorder. ECF No. 52 at 5 and n.16.

9

However, as stated above, the fact that Plaintiff did not designate Dr. Fazzini as an expert does not

10

necessarily equate to the finding that he has offered no opinions based on information beyond those

11

arising from his examinations and treatment of Plaintiff. Unfortunately, despite the addition of Rule

12

26(a)(2)(C), Defendant spent no time explaining why any of the information offered by Dr. Fazzini

13

should be treated as non-retained expert opinion and therefore subject to rebuttal. ECF No. 58.

14

Without the benefit of any of Dr. Fazzini’s records, an analysis of Dr. Fazzini’s opinions or

15

the basis for those opinions, the Court has no way of determining whether any of Dr. Etcoff’s

16

opinions rebut Dr. Fazzini’s opinions that may fall within the realm of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C).

17

This was Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike/Exclude Dr. Etcoff as a rebuttal expert. Plaintiff has provided

18

nothing other than conclusions to support that motion with respect to rebuttal of Dr. Fazzini. For

19

this reason, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Rebuttal of Dr. Fazzini cannot be granted at this time.

20

With respect to Dr. Roitman, who was disclosed as a retained expert, the Court notes that he

21

has not produced a report fully compliant with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). The December 15, 2019 disclosure

22

is therefore subject to potential future motion practice, and any supplement to Dr. Roitman’s initial

23

disclosure offered by Plaintiff now, more than a year after his initial report was issued, may also be

24

subject to exclusion. ECF No. 48-2 at 3. 3 Moreover, if Dr. Etcoff’s report is struck by the Court as

25

3

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure of Experts states Dr. Roitman will “give expert opinions regarding the treatment
of Plaintiff, the necessity of the treatment rendered, the causation of the necessity for past and future medical treatment,
his expert opinion as to past and future restrictions of activities, including work activities, caused by the fall, … the cost
of past and future medical care and whether those medical costs fall within the ordinary and customary charges for
similar medical care and treatment, and whether Plaintiff has a diminished work life expectancy, work capacity, and/or
life expectancy as a result of the fall.” Dr. Roitman did none of these things in his single page letter dated December
15, 2019. ECF No. 48-2 at 3.

9

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 10 of 12

1

Plaintiff requests, then Dr. Roitman’s August 26, 2020 rebuttal to Dr. Etcoff is also subject to being

2

struck upon a motion seeking the same not only because there is no longer anything to rebut, but

3

because Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) does not allow for a rebuttal to a rebuttal report. See id. and ECF

4

No. 48-1 at 15 (stating Dr. Roitman “will organize … [his] correspondence in accordance with

5

several points during my review of Dr. Etcoff’s rebuttal.”).

6

However, to the extent Dr. Roitman issued an opinion in his December 15, 2019 letter, and

7

that letter is not yet the subject of motion practice, Dr. Etcoff is free to rebut the same. To this end,

8

the Court finds Dr. Roitman did opine as follows: “As she presents, Ms. Freteluco’s symptoms can

9

be explained as manifestations of an acquired, accident-related neurocognitive disorder that unifies

10

her complaint that onset after the fall at Smith’s.” ECF No. 48-2 at 3. The undersigned is not a

11

medical doctor or neuropsychologist. However, because the Court is called upon to make a decision

12

regarding Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court did a thorough analysis of the opinion expressed in Dr.

13

Roitman’s December 15, 2019 letter in comparison to the information and opinions offered in Dr.

14

Etcoff’s Report. 4

15

The referral information, records reviewed, list of tests, informed consent, behavioral

16

observations, examinee interview, and test scores categories, found at ECF No. 48-3 at 6-17,

17

provides background information gathered by Dr. Etcoff. These sections of Dr. Etcoff’s report do

18

not appear to express any rebuttal or initial expert opinions, and thus are not struck. With respect to

19

Dr. Etcoff’s information and opinions regarding Plaintiff’s “Performance Validity Testing,” the

20

information appears related to and, thus, rebuttal to Dr. Roitman’s determination that Plaintiff’s

21

symptoms are explainable “as a manifestation of an acquired, accident-related neurocognitive

22

disorder.” Regarding Dr. Etcoff’s opinions expressed in the “Symptom Validity Test Results,” these

23

relate to whether Plaintiff reports symptoms accurately and therefore properly rebut Dr. Roitman’s

24

opinion.

25

Memory/Attention and Concentration,” “Verbal Memory,” “Visual Memory,” “Battery for Health

26

Improvement – 2” sections, and diagnoses of Malingering and Somatic Symptom Disorder are

27

4

28

The

“Verbal

Comprehension,”

“Visual

Perceptual

Reasoning,”

“Working

With respect to the conclusions reached regarding what is rebuttal and what must be struck in Dr. Etcoff’s
Report and precluded from future testimony, the Court is open to further briefing by the parties that provides analysis
and support for conclusions reached rather than unsupported statements that fail to enlighten the Court.

10

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 11 of 12

1

rebuttal to Dr. Roitman’s opinion that Plaintiff suffers from neurocognitive disorder. Therefore,

2

these sections also are not be struck. In contrast, “Motor Functioning,” “Information Processing

3

Speed,” “Academic Skill” and “Overall Intellectual Abilities” sections of Dr. Etcoff’s report do not

4

appear to relate to Dr. Roitman’s single opinion regarding Plaintiff. These sections, and the findings

5

therein, are struck. The Court also finds the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory goes

6

beyond the opinion issued by Dr. Roitman and is struck. Likewise, the Diagnostic Impression

7

(DSM-5/ICD-10) pertaining to past history of physical abuse in childhood, psychological abuse in

8

childhood, sexual abuse in childhood, spouse violence, physical, and spousal sexual violence are

9

diagnoses that do not rebut or respond to any diagnosis given by Dr. Roitman and, therefore, are

10

struck. Finally, any testimony offered by Dr. Etcoff in reliance on any findings not struck by this

11

Order must be limited to rebutting Dr. Roitman’s opinion that Plaintiff suffers from “an acquired,

12

accident-related neurocognitive disorder that unifies her complaints” following her fall at Smith’s.

13

III.

Order

14

Accordingly, and based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion

15

to Strike/Exclude Defendant’s Rebuttal Expert Lewis M. Etchoff, Ph.D. (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED

16

in part and DENIED in part consistent with the findings above.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that consistent with the findings above, Dr. Etcoff’s report and

18

any testimony arising therefrom is limited to rebutting whether Plaintiff suffers from “an acquired,

19

accident-related neurocognitive disorder that unifies her complaints” following her fall at Smith’s as

20

stated by Dr. Roitman in his December 15, 2019 letter.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice as to

22

striking or excluding Dr. Etcoff’s rebuttal report and testimony in response to any opinions expressed

23

by Dr. Fazzini. The Court has insufficient information before it to determine if any aspect of Dr.

24

Fazzini’s opinions detour from his status as a percipient treating physician witness to a non-retained

25
26
27
28
11

Case 2:19-cv-00759-JCM-EJY Document 62 Filed 01/08/21 Page 12 of 12

1

expert offering opinions based on his knowledge, skill, experience, training or education under

2

Federal Evidence Rules 702, 703, or 705 and, therefore, whether Dr. Etcoff may offer any rebuttal

3

to such opinions.

4

DATED this 8th day of January, 2021.

5
6
7

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12