Galloway v. County of Northampton

Galloway v. County of Northampton · Supreme Court of Virginia · April 1, 2021 · No. 191387

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed whether the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding the taxpayers' expert witnesses and dismissing their property-tax overvaluation claims with prejudice. The court upheld the exclusion of expert L. Steven Noble for failure to timely disclose the required substance of his opinions, but held that the exclusion of Jason Restein was an abuse of discretion because he had been timely identified and the discovery response was adequately signed or promptly corrected. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Noble because the taxpayers failed to provide the expert disclosure required by the pretrial scheduling order and Rule 4:1(b)(4)(A)(i) until approximately two months after the applicable deadline.
  2. The circuit court abused its discretion by excluding Restein because the taxpayers' 2015 interrogatory response sufficiently identified him as an intended expert and adequately described his opinions; the signatures elsewhere on the discovery responses, together with the taxpayer's sworn signature, satisfied Rule 4:1(g), and the omission was promptly corrected.
  3. The circuit court abused its discretion by dismissing the taxpayers' case with prejudice because its dismissal was based on the erroneous exclusion of Restein, whom the taxpayers had timely and adequately identified as an expert.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding L. Steven Noble for the taxpayers' failure to timely disclose the substance of his expected expert testimony.
  2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding Jason Restein because counsel failed to sign the designated signature blank on the 2015 interrogatory response.
  3. Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper after the circuit court excluded both experts and the taxpayers stated they could not proceed without expert testimony.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (8)

  • Martin & Martin, Inc. v. Bradley Enters., 256 Va. 288, 292-93 (1998)(followed)
  • Landrum v. Chippenham & Johnston-Willis Hosps., Inc., 282 Va. 346, 352 (2011)(followed)
  • Walsh v. Bennett, 260 Va. 171, 175 (2000)(followed)
  • Graves v. Shoemaker, 299 Va. ___ (2020)(followed)
  • Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187, 213 (2013)(followed)
  • Mikhaylov v. Sales, 291 Va. 349, 358-60 (2016)(followed)
  • John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 274 Va. 581, 592 (2007)(followed)
  • Western Refining Yorktown v. County of York, 292 Va. 804, 818 (2016)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…