Darrow Cage v. Protective Insurance Company, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana addresses Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s untimely and incomplete expert disclosures and their request to supplement their witness and exhibit list. The Court finds that Plaintiff violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C) and the scheduling order but concludes that the violation was harmless because the challenged witnesses were Plaintiff’s treating physicians and Defendants suffered little or no prejudice. The Court denies the motion to strike and grants Defendants leave to supplement their witness and exhibit list.

Holdings

1. Initial disclosures, discovery responses, and medical records did not satisfy Rule 26(a)(2)(C) because they did not provide a summary of the facts and opinions to which the treating physicians were expected to testify, including the causation opinions they might offer.
2. The violation was harmless under Rule 37(c)(1), so exclusion of the treating physicians' testimony was not warranted.
3. Good cause existed to allow Defendants to supplement their witness and exhibit list to add Dr. Lance Estrada.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's treating physicians should be excluded from testifying because Plaintiff failed to provide timely and adequate expert disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C) and the Court's scheduling order.
2. Whether Plaintiff's failure to comply with the expert-disclosure and scheduling-order deadlines was substantially justified or harmless under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).
3. Whether Defendants should be granted leave to supplement their witness and exhibit list to add Dr. Lance Estrada.

Disposition

other