Holmes et al v. Yct. Nova et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying Defendant S.B. Joseph Clark's 50 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Darryl Heasley, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

ROBERT HOLMES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12

Case No. C16-1422RSL
v.
YCT. NOVA, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
EXCLUDE

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Clark’s Motion to Exclude
Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Darryl Heasley.” Dkt. # 50. Clark alleges that he supplied
necessities to the yacht M SQUARED and that his contributions significantly increased
the value of the vessel, giving rise to a claim for damages. The value of the yacht at the
time it was returned to plaintiffs is therefore a key issue in this litigation.
Expert reports were due on April 7, 2017. Dkt. # 46. Plaintiffs’ original valuation
expert, Erik Bentzen, completed his report in August 2016. On the eve of the disclosure
deadline, plaintiffs apparently realized that Bentzen had assumed that various
recommended repairs and actions would be completed when arriving at his valuation.
Plaintiffs requested that Bentzen provide an “as is” valuation, but he was unable or
unwilling to do so. Plaintiffs quickly found and disclosed Darryl Heasley as a second
expert. Heasley was unable to inspect the vessel before the expert disclosure deadline,
however, and his report was served on defendants 25 days after the deadline.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE - 1

1
2
3
4
5

Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties and the remainder of the
record, the Court finds as follows:
1. Heasley’s expert report was untimely and will not be admitted unless the failure
to timely disclose “was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
2. The delay in disclosing plaintiff’s valuation evidence was not substantially

6

justified. The defects, if any, in Bentzen’s report could have and should have been

7

identified and resolved in the seven months between the time when Bentzen provided his

8

report and the expert disclosure deadline.

9

3. The delay was, however, harmless. Because of other scheduling difficulties,

10

Clark’s rebuttal expert report was not due until after Heasley’s report became available.

11

Clark’s expert was able to review and respond to Heasley’s opinions, and there has been

12

no impact on the other case management deadlines.

13

4. The valuations provided by the two experts are based on different assumptions

14

and are not, therefore, duplicative. Plaintiffs shall, however, make every effort to present

15

only those opinions that are germane to the issues in this case. Objections based on

16

relevance, duplication, waste of time, and confusion can be made at trial in the context of

17

individual questions.

18
19
20

For all of the foregoing reasons, Clark’s motion to exclude the opinions of Darryl
Heasley is DENIED.

21
22

DATED this 6th day of September, 2017.

23

A

24

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE - 2