Brandon Motton v. Cory Ruark

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied Plaintiff Brandon Motton’s motion for partial reconsideration concerning the exclusion of certain expert testimony. The court also sustained Motton’s objection to Defendant Cory Ruark calling Brett Josie as a trial witness, finding that Ruark failed to disclose Josie under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and did not establish that the omission was substantially justified or harmless.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was unwarranted because Plaintiff did not show a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or a material misapprehension of the factual dispute. Expert testimony framed around national standards, institutional policies, typical escort practices, or reasonable-officer requirements was properly excluded because it could substitute policy-based norms for the constitutional objective-reasonableness standard.
2. Defendant was prohibited from calling Brett Josie as a witness at trial because Defendant failed to disclose him as required by Rule 26, Plaintiff's litigation strategy was affected, and Defendant did not establish that the omission was substantially justified or harmless.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should reconsider its interlocutory exclusion of expert testimony concerning the operational meaning of segregated housing, typical inmate movement practices, and expert findings nos. 3 and 4.
2. Whether Defendant should be barred under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37(c)(1) from calling Brett Josie as a trial witness because he was not disclosed and the nondisclosure was neither substantially justified nor harmless.

Disposition

other