Caputo v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Amazon.com Services, LLC’s motion to exclude Plaintiff Patricia Caputo’s retained and non-retained expert witnesses under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37. The court found that the expert disclosures were untimely and deficient, and that permitting the experts would be prejudicial and disruptive to the case schedule. The court denied Defendant’s request to continue the pretrial conference and trial dates.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff's disclosure of Dr. Nolan did not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) because it omitted all required information concerning the expert's opinions, bases and reasons, relied-upon facts and data, qualifications, publications, prior testimony, and compensation until after the expert-discovery deadline.
2. Plaintiff's disclosures for the non-retained treating providers did not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) because they identified the subject matter of testimony but failed to summarize the facts and opinions to which the witnesses were expected to testify.
3. Exclusion of plaintiff's retained and non-retained expert witnesses was warranted because plaintiff's disclosure failures were neither substantially justified nor harmless.
4. Defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for continuing the pretrial conference and trial dates, so the request for a continuance was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's retained-expert disclosure complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).
2. Whether plaintiff's non-retained-expert disclosures complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C).
3. Whether plaintiff's disclosure failures were substantially justified or harmless such that exclusion under Rule 37(c)(1) was unwarranted.
4. Whether good cause supported defendant's requested continuance of the pretrial conference and trial.

Disposition

other