Javed et al v. Arthur

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the 54 MOTION by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses; denying as moot State Farm's Alternative 54 MOTION to Extend Deadline for Defendant to Disclose Expert Witnesses. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 1/14/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
BASEERAT JAVED,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-4626

SANDRA ARTHUR,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses or, in the Alternative,
Motion to Extend Deadline for Defendant to Disclose Expert Witnesses. ECF No. 54. Defendant
argues Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert witnesses included seven medical providers, but the
disclosure did not include any written reports as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2)(B) or any of the information required by 26(a)(2)(C) to the extent these witnesses are not
required to provide written reports. ECF No. 55, at 1–2. Plaintiff did not respond.
Whether the medical providers disclosed by Plaintiff are expert witnesses or treating
physicians is unclear. If the providers are expert witnesses, Plaintiff apparently failed to comply
with Rule 26(a)(2), and the deadline has now passed. Therefore, to the extent these medical
providers are expert witnesses, the Court precludes them from providing expert testimony. If the
medical providers are treating physicians, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1(b) controls. It states
that “[t]he disclosures described in FR Civ P 26(a)(2)(B) shall not be required of physicians and
other medical providers who examined or treated a party or party’s decedent unless the
examination was for the sole purpose of providing expert testimony in the case.” Thus, to the extent

Plaintiff’s disclosed expert witnesses are treating physicians, the Court does not preclude them
from testifying.
Under these conditions, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Expert Witnesses. ECF No. 54. Having ruled in Defendant’s favor on this ground, the Court
DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s Alternative Motion to Extend Deadline for Defendant to
Disclose Expert Witnesses. ECF No. 54.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
ENTER:

January 14, 2020

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-