Rodas v. MDOW Insurance Company

Filing 36

ORDER denying 32 Motion to Compel; denying 33 Motion for Extension of Time to File Rebuttal Report, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 12/1/14. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
YULISA RODAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MDOW INSURANCE COMPANY,
A Foreign for Profit Insurance
Company,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV-14-334-R

ORDER
Defendant has filed a Motion to Compel to which Plaintiff has responded and
Defendant replied. [Doc. No. 32]. The motion is hereby DENIED, as Defendant is incorrect
in its contention that any expert report and disclosure that was rebutting Plaintiff's experts
was due by December 3, 2014. Rather, as noted by Plaintiff, the Court's scheduling order
called for Defendant to file its list of experts and reports not more than fourteen days after
Plaintiff had done the same. Defendant's characterization of Chad Williams as a "rebuttal"
witness does not extend the time for Defendant to list its experts. Indeed, with the exception
of propositions on which a Defendant bears the burden of proof, Defendant's expert witnesses
will be rebuttal to those experts proffered by a plaintiff. The Court's scheduling order
supplants the general language of Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii), and any attempt by Defendant to list
additional expert witnesses is untimely. As such, it is not necessary to compel Plaintiff to
permit inspection of the property, and the Motion to Compel is DENIED. Furthermore,

Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to File Rebuttal Report [Doc. No. 33] is similarly
DENIED, the deadline having passed on November 17, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of December, 2014.

2