Thomas Johnson v. SN Servicing Corporation and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee for LB-Ranch Series V Trust

Johnson v. SN Servicing Corp. · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · April 24, 2026 · No. 1:25CV232

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denies Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witness, or alternatively to reopen discovery and extend their expert-disclosure deadline. The court holds that Plaintiff timely corrected an expert disclosure stating that the appraiser would later update a property appraisal and finds no substantial prejudice to Defendants. The opinion applies Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, and 37 and the Southern States factors governing exclusion of evidence.

Holdings

  1. A retained expert disclosure must include a complete statement of all opinions the expert will express and the bases, facts, data, and exhibits supporting those opinions. Plaintiff's original disclosure was deficient because it reserved the possibility of a future appraisal update without disclosing the opinions and supporting material that update would contain.
  2. The Rule 26 disclosure deficiency did not require exclusion because Plaintiff timely corrected the disclosure by withdrawing the proposed update and Defendants failed to show substantial prejudice. The nondisclosure was harmless under Rule 37(c)(1).
  3. Defendants were not entitled to reopen discovery, extend their expert-disclosure deadline, or recover attorney fees because the corrected disclosure caused no severe prejudice and provided no basis for exclusion.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff's expert disclosure violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) by failing to provide a complete statement of all opinions Wilder would express and the bases, facts, data, and exhibits supporting those opinions.
  2. Whether the disclosure deficiency required exclusion of Wilder and his appraisal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).
  3. Whether Defendants were entitled to reopen discovery, extend their expert-disclosure deadline, or recover attorney fees under Rules 16(f) and 37(c)(1).

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (11)

  • Caraustar Indus., Inc. v. North Ga. Converting, Inc., No. 3:04CV187, 2006 WL 3751453, at *8 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2006)(followed)
  • Doe v. Coastal Carolina Univ., No. 4:18CV268, 2021 WL 1654747, at *5 (D.S.C. Mar. 5, 2021)(followed)
  • Goodwin v. Cockrell, No. 4:13CV199, 2015 WL 575861, at *5 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2015)(followed)
  • Nelson-Salabes, Inc. v. Morningside Dev., LLC, 284 F.3d 505, 512 n.10 (4th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 595 n.2, 597 (4th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Bresler v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 855 F.3d 178, 190 (4th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 222 (4th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Medical Provider Fin. Corp., II v. Southwest Doctors Grp., LLC, No. 2:07CV345, 2008 WL 11451258, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 3, 2008)(persuasive)
  • Barnhill v. Accordius Health at Greensboro, LLC, No. 1:22CV322, 2023 WL 7634449, at *16 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 14, 2023)(persuasive)
  • Feierstein v. North Carolina Dep’t of Env’t & Nat. Res., 211 N.C. App. 194, 195-96, 712 S.E.2d 343, 344-45 (2011)(mentioned)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…