Murray et al v. Southern Route Maritime SA et al

Filing 65

ORDER granting in part and denying in part pltfs' 36 Motion to exclude expert testimony by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
ROGER and ELISE MURRAY,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
SOUTHERN ROUTE MARITIME, S.A.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C12-1854RSL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
EXPERT TESTIMONY

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Rule 37(c) Motion for Failure

15

to Disclose.” Dkt. # 36. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted

16

by the parties, the Court finds as follows:

17

Pursuant to the case management schedule issued by the Court on February 28,

18

2013, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), the parties were to disclose and provide reports on or before

19

March 12, 2014, for “any witness [they] may use at trial to present” expert testimony. By

20

operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii), “if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or

21

rebut evidence” offered by another party’s expert, the disclosures and reports were due on April

22

11, 2014. Defendants chose not to provide expert reports on March 12, 2014, and plaintiffs

23

promptly moved to exclude the testimony of the three experts defendants identified. After the

24

briefing in this matter closed, defendants timely provided rebuttal expert reports. Dkt. # 57.

25
26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY

1

The experts offered in rebuttal will be restricted “solely” to rebutting or

2

contradicting the expert testimony and opinions offered by the experts plaintiffs disclosed on

3

March 12, 2014. The rebuttal experts may not put forth their own theories or opinions regarding

4

the cause or extent of Mr. Murray’s injuries or his associated damages. These issues were long

5

part of this litigation, and if defendants had expert testimony that would support a favorable

6

story line, the testimony should have been disclosed in a report on March 12, 2014, so that

7

plaintiff would have an opportunity to develop rebuttal testimony. Having foregone the

8

opportunity to submit initial expert reports, the testimony of defendants’ experts will be limited

9

to explaining why the theories and opinions offered by plaintiffs’ experts are unsound.

10
11
12

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to exclude expert witnesses is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

13
14
15
16

Dated this 23rd day of April, 2014.

A
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY

-2-