Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03175/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03175-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Judy McQuagge, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-03175-PHX-ROS (ESW)

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefing concerning Defendants’ “Motion to 

Disqualify Plaintiff’s Expert, John O’Steen, M.D.” (Doc. 24). For the reasons explained 

below, the Court will deny the Motion. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS 

Federal courts have the inherent power to disqualify expert witnesses to protect the 

integrity of the adversary process, protect privileges that otherwise may be breached, and 

promote public confidence in the legal system. See Campbell Indus. v. M/V Gemini, 619 

F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 1980) (“A district court is vested with broad discretion to make 

discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial . . . 

including disqualifying expert testimony.”). Disqualification is a drastic measure that 

courts should use reluctantly and rarely. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. EMC Corp., 330 F. Supp. 

2d 1087, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2004). 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff is the statutory beneficiary of the deceased William Holtz, who died while 

WO

Case 2:18-cv-03175-ROS-ESW Document 36 Filed 08/08/19 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

incarcerated in an Arizona state prison. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Holtz’ death was a result 

of Defendants’ failure to provide adequate medical care. (Doc. 1-3 at 3-9). Plaintiff has 

disclosed John O’Steen, M.D. as an expert witness to provide testimony concerning the 

standard of care that Defendants should have used in treating Mr. Holtz’ medical 

conditions. Defendants do not dispute that Dr. O’Steen meets the professional 

qualifications of an expert under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-2604 and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 702. (Doc. 27 at 3). Nevertheless, Defendants assert that Dr. O’Steen must be 

disqualified in this matter. 

Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify (Doc. 24) relies primarily on a decision in a 

Superior Court of Arizona case that involved the death of another Arizona prisoner. The 

plaintiff in that case also retained Dr. O’Steen as a medical standard of care expert. (Doc. 

24-1 at 2-6). The state court found that Dr. O’Steen communicated with two of the 

defendants’ staff members regarding the plaintiff’s medical care both before and after he 

was retained as the plaintiff’s expert. (Id. at 4). The state court’s decision states that: 

Dr. O’Steen’s action in interviewing witnesses for Plaintiffs is 

akin to being Plaintiffs’ investigator. The Court did not see 

any evidence that Plaintiffs’ legal team did anything to warn 

Dr. O’Steen not to speak with Corizon’s former employees . . 

. . Plaintiffs’ legal team also knew since May 14, 2017 that Dr. 

O’Steen had discussions with Corizon employees about [the 

deceased’s] care. 

(Id.). The state court concluded that Plaintiffs’ counsel violated Arizona Rule of 

Professional Conduct ER 4.2 “when Dr. O’Steen had ex-parte communications ‘about the 

subject of the representation’ with a represented party.”1

 (Id. at 4-5). The state court 

further found that Plaintiffs’ counsel violated Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct ER 

5.3 and 8.4(a)2

 when 

 

1

 Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct ER 4.2 provides: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.” 

2

 Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct ER 5.3 requires a lawyer to adequately supervise a nonlawyer retained by or associated with a lawyer. Under Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct ER 8.4(a), it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or 

Case 2:18-cv-03175-ROS-ESW Document 36 Filed 08/08/19 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

Plaintiffs’ legal team asked Dr. O’Steen to find out who would 

be willing to testify, knew that Dr. O’Steen was going to talk 

to witnesses, took no action to warn Dr. O’Steen not to talk to 

[the two staff members], failed to disclose the information 

provided by Dr. O’Steen, and took advantage of the 

information provided by Dr. O’Steen by noticing [the two staff 

members] for deposition and asserting a new claim for 

deliberate indifference. The Court specifically finds that 

Plaintiffs’ attorneys ratified Dr. O’Steen’s conduct. 

(Id. at 5). As a sanction for the misconduct of the Plaintiffs’ counsel, the state court struck 

Dr. O’Steen as an expert and precluded Plaintiffs from calling the two staff members in 

their case-in-chief. (Id. at 6). Defendants have not disputed Plaintiff’s assertion that those 

staff members worked at a different prison complex than Mr. Holtz was housed. (Doc. 25 

at 6). Defendants have not produced substantive evidence indicating that the staff members 

had contact with Mr. Holtz. Nor have Defendants alleged that Plaintiff’s counsel has 

engaged in the type of professional misconduct in this matter for which counsel was 

sanctioned in the state court case. The Court does not find the existence of circumstances 

that warrant the disqualification of Dr. O’Steen as an expert witness in this matter. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ “Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Expert, 

John O’Steen, M.D.” (Doc. 24). 

Dated this 8th day of August, 2019. 

attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another. 

Case 2:18-cv-03175-ROS-ESW Document 36 Filed 08/08/19 Page 3 of 3