Ronald E. Sexton v. Bankers Standard Insurance Company d/b/a Chubb

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Plaintiff Ronald E. Sexton’s motion for leave to supplement his expert disclosures. The court held that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause or excusable neglect for designating Christopher Leaton after the scheduling-order deadline. The court also concluded that denying the motion would not be dispositive of Plaintiff’s claims because he had already disclosed another causation and origin expert.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to establish good cause because he did not show that the expert-disclosure deadline could not have been met despite diligent efforts and did not provide an adequate explanation for the delay.
2. Plaintiff failed to establish excusable neglect because the delay was within his control, was substantial in context, prejudiced Defendant, and was not adequately explained by uncertainty about Defendant's litigation position.
3. The court was not required to grant the motion or impose a lesser curative measure because Plaintiff did not substantively show that exclusion of Leaton would be dispositive of his claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff established good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order and designate Christopher Leaton as an additional expert after the deadline.
2. Whether Plaintiff established excusable neglect for the untimely expert disclosure.
3. Whether the potentially dispositive nature of excluding the proposed expert required consideration of lesser curative measures.

Disposition

other