Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08140/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08140-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiffs' motion fails to comply with LRCiv 7.2(j)'s requirement that moving

counsel certify that they personally consulted with the opposing party prior to filing the

motion.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ruth Bradburn Mitchell, individually and

as personal representative of the Estate of

Kenneth Mitchell; Kenneth Christopher

Mitchell, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Flagstaff; Roy Taylor; Jane Doe

Taylor, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-08140-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs' request for clarification or alternatively request for

extension (doc. 97) and defendants' response (doc. 101).1

Our Rule 16 scheduling order set July 20, 2012 as the deadline for parties "to finally

supplement all discovery. . . pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), of all exhibits to be used

and all witnesses to be called at trial" (doc. 25 at 2) (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs ask for

clarification whether a computer animation that they plan to develop, which they characterize

as a demonstrative exhibit and "an illustration of the conclusions already reached by

[p]laintiffs' experts," must be disclosed by July 20, 2012. Mot. at 2.

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 105 Filed 07/16/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The answer is yes. Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(iii), Fed. R. Civ. P. requires that an expert report

contain "any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support" the expert's opinions. This

includes animations, demonstrative or otherwise, intended to illustrate an expert's

conclusions. See Raley v. Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., CIV-08-0376-HE, 2010 WL 545860,

at *3 (W.D.Okla. Feb. 9, 2010) (regardless of whether experts' exhibits were substantive or

demonstrative, they were required to be disclosed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(iii), Fed. R.

Civ. P.). Rule 26(e)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. requires that supplementation of information

contained in an expert report "must be disclosed by the time the party's pretrial disclosures

under Rule 26(a)(3) are due." Our scheduling order set this deadline as July 20, 2012.

Alternatively, plaintiffs ask that the July 20, 2012 supplementation deadline be

extended "to allow sufficient time for demonstrative exhibits to be prepared with all

discovery taken into consideration." Mot. at 4. Scheduling orders "may be modified only

for good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Plaintiffs have not identified good cause for an

extension here. The scheduling order is crafted to require final supplementation before the

close of all discovery to allow the parties a meaningful opportunity to review each other's

materials and prepare any rebuttal. Extending the final supplementation deadline will upset

the remaining deadlines. The scheduling order was entered over seven months ago, affording

the parties ample time to plan ahead in order to meet the final supplementation deadline.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' request for clarification or alternatively

request for extension (doc. 97).

DATED this 13th day of July, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 105 Filed 07/16/12 Page 2 of 2