Kossmeyer v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., et al.

Summary

The court granted State Farm’s motion to exclude the proposed expert testimony of Pete Hennessey under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). It held that Hennessey’s report did not adequately disclose the bases, reasons, data, and other information underlying his opinions, and that the disclosure failure was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The plaintiffs were given seven days to submit a compliant expert report if they wished to offer Hennessey as an expert witness.

Holdings

1. An expert report does not satisfy Rule 26(a)(2)(B) when it fails to provide the basis and reasons for the expert's opinions and the data or other information considered in forming them. Hennessey's report was entirely inadequate because it did not disclose the reasoning, calculation methodology, or supporting information necessary to explain his conclusions.
2. Exclusion of Hennessey's expert testimony was warranted because plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), offered no substantial justification for the failure, and caused significant, uncured surprise and prejudice to defendant.
3. Although the motion to exclude was granted, plaintiffs were given seven days from the date of the order to submit a new expert report prepared and signed by Hennessey that complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), if they wished to offer him as an expert.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pete Hennessey's expert report satisfied the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).
2. Whether exclusion of Hennessey's expert testimony was warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) because the deficient disclosure was neither substantially justified nor harmless.
3. Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to submit a corrected expert report within a specified period.

Disposition

other