Estate of Daniel Keith Ross v. Gallatin County and John Does 5-10

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Montana ruled on Gallatin County’s first motion in limine, the Estate’s motions in limine, and the Estate’s motion to strike an amended expert disclosure. The court denied the County’s motion in limine, granted some of the Estate’s motions while denying or reserving ruling on others, and denied the motion to strike. The order addresses treating-provider expert testimony, nonparty and settled-party fault, evidence of the decedent’s history, and the proposed use of an amended liability expert disclosure.

Holdings

1. Treating providers may offer causation opinions developed during the course of treating K.R. without the written report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), so long as the disclosure satisfies Rule 26(a)(2)(C) and the providers made a foundational showing that they developed their causation opinions during treatment.
2. Gallatin County may not argue, suggest, or present evidence that Ross's death was caused by Poucher, Ross's mother, or the treating hospital because those entities were not joined as third parties and had not settled with or been released by the claimant.
3. Gallatin County may not argue, suggest, or present evidence that Ross's death was caused by WMMHC or Clayleen Pipinich, because the Estate had settled its claims against them and Gallatin County had not alleged that a settled or released party was at fault.
4. Evidence of Ross's prior criminal conduct, incarcerations, and drug or alcohol use was not categorically excluded and could be admitted because it was relevant to liability and damages and its probative value was not outweighed by undue prejudice.
5. The Estate's motion to strike Dr. Johnson's amended expert disclosure was denied because the disclosure was not untimely in light of the scheduled trial date and the Estate had prior notice of both the opinions and Gallatin County's intent to use them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether treating providers could offer causation opinions concerning K.R.'s emotional distress without Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert reports.
2. Whether the defendant could present evidence or argument attributing Ross's death to nonparties who had not been joined or to parties who had settled or been released.
3. Whether evidence of Ross's prior criminal conduct, incarcerations, drug use, and alcohol use was relevant and admissible despite potential prejudice.
4. Whether evidence concerning Ross's divorce, alleged domestic violence, and alleged abuse or neglect of children should be excluded before trial.
5. Whether comparative fault could be presented on the Estate's Section 1983 claim after summary judgment had eliminated that claim.
6. Whether Gallatin County's amended disclosure identifying Dr. Sally Ann Cunningham Johnson as a retained expert should be stricken or her testimony excluded.

Disposition

other