Collie v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
Filing
65
ORDER denying Collie's MIL 42 to exclude Ferguson's testimony. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/24/17. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KATHLEEN ANN COLLIE,
Plaintiff
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.,
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-227
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2017, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 42) in limine by plaintiff Kathleen Ann Collie (“Collie”), seeking to exclude the
supplemental expert report (Doc. 42-1) of Duane R. Ferguson (“Ferguson”), the
expert witness offered by defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (“Wal-Mart”), on
the basis that Wal-Mart submitted the report on March 3, 2017, (id. at 1), several
months after the court’s January 18, 2017 deadline for supplemental or rebuttal
expert reports, (Doc. 20), and Collie contending that Wal-Mart’s failure to comport
with the court’s deadlines causes prejudice ipso facto, (Doc. 43 at 6), but the court
acknowledging that precluding an expert’s testimony is an “extreme sanction,” In
re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 721 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Dudley v. S. Jersey Metal,
Inc., 555 F.2d 96, 99 (3d Cir. 1977)), amended, 199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir 2000), and
observing that, in determining whether to exclude Ferguson’s testimony, the court
must weigh (1) the potential prejudice Collie would suffer if the court permitted
Ferguson to testify concerning the material in his supplemental report; (2) WalMart’s ability to cure said prejudice; (3) the extent to which allowing Ferguson to
testify would disrupt the efficiency of the pending trial; (4) any bad faith by WalMart in failing to comply with the court’s discovery order; and (5) the importance of
the evidence, see ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254, 298 (3d Cir. 2012)
(quoting Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n, 559 F.2d 894, 905 (3d
Cir. 1977), overruled on other grounds by Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 777 F.2d
113 (3d Cir. 1985)), and the court first noting that neither party has alleged potential
efficiency issues, or bad faith, or explored the relative importance of the evidence,
and the court concluding, upon review of the expert reports, that Ferguson’s
supplemental report does not provide new facts, data, or conclusions, but only
rebuts the reports of Collie’s expert, and therefore prejudice to Collie, if any, is
limited, it is hereby ORDERED that Collie’s motion (Doc. 42) in limine to exclude
Ferguson’s testimony is DENIED.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?