Martinez v. Target
Filing
82
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 73 Motion in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/3/2015. (blh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
TARGET’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL
BILL SUMMARY AND REFERENCES
TO DR. DECHETT AND HER
TREATMENT
DEBBRA MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:12-CV-1052 TS
Defendant.
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Plaintiff’s Medical
Bill Summary, and All References to Dr. Pilar Dechett and Her Treatment. The Court will grant
the Motion in part and deny the Motion in part for reasons discussed below.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff first disclosed Dr. Pilar Dechett’s treatment of Plaintiff
and the medical expenses associated with that treatment on October 23, 2015, in a proposed
exhibit summarizing Plaintiff’s medical expenses. The Court finds no other disclosure of Dr.
Dechett and her treatment of Plaintiff.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c) provides that “[i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a
witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or
witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial, unless the failure was
substantially justified or is harmless.” However,
[a] district court need not make explicit findings concerning the existence of a
substantial justification or the harmlessness of a failure to disclose. Nevertheless,
the following factors should guide [the Court’s] discretion: (1) the prejudice or
surprise to the party against whom the testimony is offered; (2) the ability of the
1
party to cure the prejudice; (3) the extent to which introducing such testimony
would disrupt the trial; and (4) the moving party’s bad faith or willfulness. 1
The Court finds that Plaintiff identified Dr. Dechett and the summary of the costs
of her treatment of Plaintiff no earlier than October 23, 2015. This was not only an
untimely disclosure, but it occurred close enough to trial to prejudice the Defendant. The
Court will therefore grant the Motion to preclude mention of Dr. Dechett, any treatment
she provided, and the costs of such treatment. This does not mean, however, that the
entire summary of Plaintiff’s medical expenses must be excluded. The Court will allow
such a summary, provided that any reference to Dr. Dechett and her treatment of Plaintiff
is removed.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony (Docket No. 73) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
DATED this 3rd day of December, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
1
Woodworker’s Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir.
1999) (citation omitted).
2
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?