Hill v. City of Oklahoma City et al

Filing 84

ORDER denying 37 OKC's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 9/6/17. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANTHONY HILL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-881-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendant City of Oklahoma City’s (“OKC”) Motion to
Strike Plaintiff’s Expert (Dkt. No. 37). Plaintiff has responded and the Motion is now at
issue.
OKC argues the expert, Mr. D.P. Van Blaricom, provides a report that violates the
rules set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho
Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386
(1989), Fed. R. Evid. 702, and the Scheduling Order governing this case. Plaintiff argues
the report is proper and the Motion should be denied.
OKC argues the report violates the Court’s Scheduling Order because it is labeled
as a preliminary report. This argument is misplaced. Blaricom was entitled to label his
report as preliminary because it was dated December 18, 2016, before the deadline for
Plaintiff to submit expert reports to Defendants. Blaricom could have amended the report
until the deadline, and after it passed, the report may be considered final. The Court will

not exclude an expert for such trivial matters as long as the report was submitted in a timely
fashion to the appropriate parties.
The remainder of OKC’s arguments do not go towards whether Blaricom’s
testimony is reliable * and are more properly raised in a motion in limine or as an objection
at trial. OKC does not object to Blaricom’s qualifications and past experiences that form
the basis for his principles and methods. The Court has reviewed the report and finds it
satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, OKC’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert (Dkt. No. 37) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2017.

*

Fed. R. Evid. 702 does not require Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 relevancy. While some
issues raised may need to be addressed at a later date, OKC’s relevancy arguments are will not be
entertained here.
2