Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01632/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01632-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leanna Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Barrow Neurological Institute of St.

Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-01632-PHX-FJM

ORDER

After more than two years of protracted litigation in this court, this case is finally

coming to a close. The court granted summary judgment to defendants Banner Health

System ("Banner") and Scott Elton, M.D. (collectively, "Banner defendants") on July 31,

2012 (doc. 200). Plaintiff and defendants Dignity Health, Charles Alfano, M.D., and Harold

Rekate, M.D. (collectively, "Dignity defendants") filed a stipulation of dismissal and these

defendants have been dismissed (doc. 235). Defendants State of Arizona, Arizona

Department of Economic Security, Child Protective Services ("CPS"), Laura Pederson,

Tammy Hamilton-Macalpine, and Bonnie Brown (collectively, "state defendants") are the

only defendants left in this case. Several motions are pending before the court: Banner

defendants' motion to compel and strike (doc. 175), state defendants' joinder (doc. 195),

plaintiff's response (doc. 197), Banner defendants' motion to exclude and compel disclosures

and discovery responses (doc. 193), plaintiff's response (doc. 212), and Dignity defendants'

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 255 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 4
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

It also asked, in the alternative, for an order compelling plaintiff to identify the

subject matter of each expert's testimony and a summary of their opinions. Banner later

withdrew this portion of the motion (doc. 190).

- 2 -

"input" (doc. 224), Banner's motion to transfer related case pursuant to LRCiv 42.1(a) (doc.

230), plaintiff's response to motion to transfer and motion to strike (doc. 244), and Banner's

reply in support of motion to transfer and response to motion to strike (doc. 248).

State defendants did not join in Banner defendants' motion to exclude and compel

disclosures and discovery responses (doc. 193). Since Banner defendants are no longer

parties, this motion is now moot.

Banner asked the court to strike plaintiff's expert witness disclosures and state

defendants join in this motion.1

 Plaintiff identified 250 treating physicians as expert

witnesses. Her disclosures failed to comply with Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P. The witnesses are

identified as experts, but there are no written reports accompanying the disclosure. Plaintiff

contends these experts are not required to provide written reports pursuant to Rule

26(a)(2)(C). But when witnesses fall into this category, plaintiff must provide a summary

of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify. Rule 26(a)(2)(C)(ii).

Referring to medical records associated with the physician fails to meet the requirements of

this rule and provides cause to strike plaintiff's expert disclosures.

Plaintiff identified two testifying expert witnesses in her disclosure, Dr. Newberger

and Dr. Mart. Dr. Newberger is plaintiff's child abuse expert and Dr. Mart is plaintiff's

psychologist expert. Her disclosures regarding these witnesses fail to comply with Rule

26(a)(2)(B)(v)-(vi), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Dr. Newberger's report is from the related juvenile court case and does not squarely

address issues raised in this litigation. This court found his opinion regarding Banner

defendants inadmissible because his speculation about their motives would not help a fact

finder determine a fact in issue (doc. 200). His report contains conclusions relating to the

CPS investigation of C.R. and involvement with her subsequent foster care. Dr. Newberger's

report will not be stricken, but the court's reliance on it will of course be limited to what is

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 255 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

relevant, reliable, and helpful in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.

Rule 702, Fed. R. Evid.

Similarly, Dr. Mart's expert report consists of three letters written to plaintiff's counsel

in preparation for the juvenile court proceedings, not for this case (doc. 175, ex. 1 at 128-39).

The letter dated May 10, 2012 discusses nothing but an incident regarding J.S. (id. at 137).

 Yet no allegations in this case relate to J.S. The other two letters are "primarily related to

the psychological evaluations performed by Kathryn Menendez, Ph.D., and Brenda Bursch,

Ph.D." (id. at 128). Dr. Menendez diagnosed plaintiff with Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

Dr. Bursch diagnosed plaintiff with various mental disorders and conducted therapy sessions

with C.R. The letters focus on whether C.R. was truly a victim of abuse. Neither letter

discusses the remaining defendants or the current case. His report fails to provide a complete

statement of all his opinions in this case, contrary to the requirement of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i),

Fed. R. Civ. P. The letter dated May 10, 2012 is stricken as irrelevant. The letters dated

March 28, 2011 and February 10, 2012 are stricken for lack of compliance with Rule

26(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Banner moves to transfer Smith v. Elton, No. 2:12-CV-00905-PHX-ROS, to this court

on the basis that both cases arise from the same events and have substantially the same

parties. All defendants in Smith v. Elton other than Tammy Hamilton-Macalpine, Bonnie

Brown, Amanda Torres, and their unknown spouses were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff

on August 15 and August 22, 2012. Banner is no longer a party to either case. This case

was filed more than two years ago and a dispositive motion has been lodged that relates to

all but one of the remaining defendants. In contrast, Smith v. Elton is less than five months

old. Plaintiff's new case raises issues not raised here. Because the cases are at very different

stages of litigation and address different issues, transfer would not be economical. Plaintiff

opposed Banner's motion through a response and motion to strike, but provides no argument

for why the motion should be stricken rather than denied.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING in part and DENYING in part defendants' motion

to strike (doc. 175). Plaintiff's disclosure of 250 treating physicians and Dr. Mart's report are

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 255 Filed 09/21/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

stricken. Plaintiff's disclosure of Dr. Newberger's report is not stricken.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING as moot Banner defendants' motion to exclude and

compel disclosures and discovery responses (doc. 193).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Banner's motion to transfer related case

pursuant to LRCiv 42.1(a) (doc. 230) and plaintiff's motion to strike (doc. 244).

DATED this 20th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 255 Filed 09/21/12 Page 4 of 4