Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging an order allowing the substitution of an expert witness after discovery had closed. The court held that such a motion is governed by NRCP 16(b)(4)'s good-cause standard, together with applicable local rules such as EDCR 2.35(a)'s excusable-neglect requirement. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reopening discovery for the limited purpose of substituting the expert.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard governs a motion to substitute an expert witness after discovery has closed?
- Whether the district court properly applied NRCP 16(b)(4)'s good-cause standard together with applicable local discovery rules, including EDCR 2.35(a)'s excusable-neglect requirement.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by modifying the scheduling order, reopening limited discovery, and allowing Compton to substitute Dr. Leon for Dr. Gross.
Holdings
- A motion to substitute an expert witness after discovery has closed necessarily requires consideration of modification of the scheduling order and reopening of discovery. The governing standard is NRCP 16(b)(4)'s good-cause standard, considered together with any applicable local discovery rules.
- The district court properly found good cause and excusable neglect where the expert's guilty plea remained sealed, his conviction and prison sentence unexpectedly made him unavailable, the plaintiff acted diligently after learning of the developments, and the limited substitution caused no undue prejudice.
- Mandamus relief was not warranted because petitioners failed to show that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously or failed to perform a legally required act.
Key quotations
“A motion to substitute an expert witness after close of discovery necessarily requires the district court to consider modifying the scheduling order and reopening discovery.” (Conclusion)
“We adopt the federal approach and conclude that NRCP 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” test, in combination with any relevant local rules, provides the standard governing when a district court may modify a scheduling order.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Compton sustained significant injuries in a motor vehicle accident and designated Dr. Jeffrey Gross as his retained medical expert. Discovery closed on March 7, 2020, but Gross later pleaded guilty under seal to a federal felony conspiracy charge and was sentenced to fifteen months in prison; the plea and conviction became public in May 2021. Compton promptly moved to substitute Dr. Raimundo Leon, and the district court permitted the substitution while limiting reopened discovery to replacing Gross and prohibiting other discovery.
Procedural history
Lamont Compton sued Torremoro and Keolis for negligence-related claims arising from a motor vehicle accident. After Compton's designated expert became unavailable following a sealed guilty plea and prison sentence, the district court allowed Compton to substitute another expert, reopened discovery for the limited purpose of the substitution, and rescheduled trial. Petitioners sought mandamus relief directing the district court to vacate that order; the Nevada Supreme Court entertained the petition but denied relief.