Tytanic v. Blue Sky Bio LLC et al
ORDER denying 43 Defendant Blue Sky Bio, LLC's Motion to Strike Expert Witness of Plaintiff. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 8/18/2017. (mb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER A. TYTANIC,
BLUE SKY BIO, LLC, et al.,
Case No. CIV-16-1107-D
Before the Court is Defendant Blue Sky Bio, LLC’s Motion to Strike Expert
Witness of Plaintiff [Doc. No. 43]. Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the Motion,
and Defendant has replied. The Motion is thus fully briefed and at issue.
This diversity case involves claims of manufacturer’s products liability, negligence,
breach of implied warranty, and fraud related to a failed dental implant. By the Motion,
Defendant seeks the exclusion of Plaintiff’s designated expert witness, Dr. J. Reed Butler,
a dentist who both performed Plaintiff’s dental implant procedure and will provide opinion
testimony that the implant manufactured by Defendant was defective. Defendant seeks an
order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), prohibiting Plaintiff from using Dr. Butler as an
expert witness due to his failure to provide an expert report that satisfies the disclosure
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). In response, Plaintiff argues that Dr. Butler’s
report is sufficient to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 703
and, in any event, Dr. Butler should not be excluded as a witness because any deficiency
in his report was “justified or is harmless.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). In reply,
Defendant points out that Plaintiff’s attempt to bolster Dr. Butler’s report does not address
the disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(A)(2)(B), and Defendant disputes
Plaintiff’s contention that it is not prejudiced by the deficient report.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that the Motion fails to comply with LCvR37.1,
which provides: “With respect to all motions and objections relating to discovery pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 and 45, the court shall refuse to hear any such motion or
objection unless counsel for the movant first advises the court in writing that counsel
personally have met and conferred in good faith and, after a sincere attempt to resolve
differences, have been unable to reach an accord.” Defendant does not address LCvR37.1
in its Motion, or show compliance with the personal conference requirement.
Further, it is unclear from the present record whether Dr. Butler is subject to the
disclosure requirement of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), which requires a written report from an expert
witness who is “retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case.”
Dr. Butler states he “will not receive any compensation for [his] study and testimony in
this case.” See Expert Witness Written Report [Doc. No. 48-1]. As Plaintiff’s treating
physician, Dr. Butler may testify concerning facts and opinions related to the diagnosis and
treatment of Plaintiff of which he has personal knowledge, without complying with the
disclosure requirement of Rule 26(a)(2)(B). See Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138
(10th Cir. 1999). It is also unclear whether Dr. Butler is prepared to serve as an expert
witness. Dr. Butler’s statement that this case is his first, together with the conclusory
nature of his report, suggest he is unaware of the level of work required of a litigation
In short, it appears to the Court that the issues raised by the Motion might be further
developed, clarified, or resolved through a personal conference of counsel. Therefore, the
Court finds that the Motion should be denied without prejudice to a future filing if the
parties are unable to reach an accord after a sincere attempt to resolve their differences.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Expert Witness
of Plaintiff [Doc. No. 43] is DENIED, as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of August, 2017.
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?