Brenda Hale v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Limited Partnership

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Walmart’s motion to strike Brenda Hale’s supplemental expert disclosures and to exclude her liability expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court concluded that the delayed disclosures were substantially justified or harmless and that the expert’s premises-safety analysis was reliable and helpful to the jury. The underlying action concerns Hale’s slip-and-fall injury at a Walmart store.

Holdings

1. The supplemental disclosures should not be excluded because any delay was substantially justified and harmless. Walmart could not establish prejudice where its own scheduling conduct caused the relevant depositions to occur near or after the discovery deadline, Hale provided notice of the possible changes, and Walmart had a fair opportunity to address the updated opinions.
2. David Johnson's proposed testimony was not excluded at this stage because his forensic premises-safety methods were reliable and his specialized review of surveillance footage, safety-sweep practices, and industry materials would assist the trier of fact. Walmart's arguments concerning particular legal conclusions or testimony beyond common knowledge could be renewed in a motion in limine after pretrial disclosures.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hale's supplemental disclosures concerning her treating surgeon and damages expert should be stricken as untimely under Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether Hale's liability expert, David Johnson, should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert because his methods were allegedly unreliable and his opinions would not assist the jury.

Disposition

other