Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_18-cv-00461/USCOURTS-alsd-1_18-cv-00461-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LASHUNNA WILSON, as 

administratrix and personal

representative of the estate

of William Henry Harris, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN CYNTHIA STEWART, et al.,

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-00461-B

 ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration of the Court’s Decision Denying Leave to Disclose 

Plaintiff’s Expert Dr. Victor Lofgreen (Doc. 89) and Defendants’ 

responses in opposition thereto. (Docs. 90, 91). Upon 

consideration, the motion is denied.

In the motion, Plaintiff argues that her request for 

reconsideration is justified because the expert disclosure of Dr. 

Lofgreen was not available to her at the time of the Court’s 

ruling. Plaintiff also contends that the impact of allowing the 

out-of-time disclosure will be de minimis because the Court has 

extended deadlines in this case, including the deadlines for taking 

the deposition of Plaintiff’s experts, disclosing and deposing 

Defendants’ disclosures, the filing of summary judgment motions, 

Case 1:18-cv-00461-B Document 92 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
2

and trial. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that her expert was 

unable to formulate his opinions without the records and deposition 

transcripts from the correctional defendants and that Plaintiff 

acted in good faith in seeking to schedule the depositions during 

the discovery period. Finally, Plaintiff contends that to exclude 

Dr. Lofgreen’s disclosures as a sanction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 

would be an abuse of discretion because Plaintiff’s non-disclosure 

was either substantially justified or harmless.

Defendants, on the other hand, argue that Plaintiff’s latest 

submission should be stricken. Defendants note that Plaintiff did 

not seek leave before filing the latest disclosure and has not 

demonstrated any new development in the case, except for the fact 

that Plaintiff has now obtained yet another expert disclosure far 

outside of the deadline set in the court’s scheduling order. 

Defendants further argue that Plaintiff is attempting to undermine 

the Court’s authority and set a bad precedent that Court deadlines 

can be disregarded at a whim.

In the interests of finality and conservation of scarce 

resources, reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary remedy 

which is to be employed sparingly. United States v. Bailey, 288 

F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2003), aff’d, 419 F.3d 1208 (11th 

Cir. 2005); Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 812 F. Supp. 524, 524

(E.D. Pa. 1992); see also Spellman v. Haley, 2004 WL 866837, *2 

(M.D. Ala. 2002) (“[L]itigants should not use motions to

Case 1:18-cv-00461-B Document 92 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
3

reconsider as a knee-jerk reaction to an adverse ruling.”). 

However, reconsideration is proper when newly discovered evidence 

is brought to the court’s attention or clear error has been shown. 

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2); Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. 

CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Motions for 

reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest 

errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”); 

Summit Med. Ctr. of Ala., Inc. v. Riley, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 

1355 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (“A motion to reconsider is only available 

when a party presents the court with evidence of an intervening 

change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or 

the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.”). 

The background surrounding Plaintiff’s untimely expert 

disclosures is contained in the Court’s order entered on March 24, 

2020, and will not be repeated here. (Doc. 88). The undersigned, 

with great reluctance, permitted Plaintiff to disclose Lori E. 

Roscoe and Robert Gilbert, DO, two medical experts, beyond the 

deadline for expert disclosures and the discovery deadline after 

determining that Plaintiff’s efforts to schedule the depositions 

early on were hampered, that counsel for the parties had 

discussions about extending the disclosure deadline, and that the 

experts needed key medical testimony before rendering opinions. 

The Court declined, however, to permit Plaintiff to offer any 

additional disclosures in the interests of finality and fairness. 

Case 1:18-cv-00461-B Document 92 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
4

As noted in the Court’s order dated March 24, 2020, Plaintiff’s 

counsel requested several discovery conferences with the Court and 

never once mentioned any problems concerning expert disclosures, 

let alone the identity of any such experts. (Doc. 88 at 7). 

Counsel is simply not permitted to litigate in a manner and on 

terms they find most desirable and convenient to them. 

Furthermore, a review of Dr. Lofgreen’s expert disclosure reveals 

that his opinions could have been rendered long before the 

expiration of the February 28, 2020, deadline. From his report, 

it is not clear when Dr. Lofgreen was initially retained by 

Plaintiff’s counsel. However, what is clear is that Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint, which was filed on January 31, 2019, contains 

specific and detailed allegations regarding the conduct of the 

correctional Defendants immediately preceding the death of 

Plaintiff’s decedent. (Doc. 17). This information was presumably 

based on statements from inmate witnesses obtained by Plaintiff’s 

counsel before filing suit. Additionally, defense counsel 

asserts, and Plaintiff has not denied, that Plaintiff’s counsel 

was provided the Alabama Department of Corrections’ investigative 

file prior to the extension of the original discovery deadline in 

this case. The file contains a detailed report regarding ADOC’s 

investigation into the death of Plaintiff’s decedent, as well as 

oral interviews with the correctional and medical witnesses who 

interacted with the decedent in the 24 hours immediately preceding 

Case 1:18-cv-00461-B Document 92 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
5

his death. Armed with such information, the undersigned finds it 

incredulous that preliminary opinions regarding the actions of the 

correctional defendants could not have been rendered. This is 

particularly true given that there is nothing before the Court 

that suggests that the deposition testimony given by the 

correctional defendants was at great odds with their oral 

statements given immediately following the decedent’s death. 

Accordingly, under these circumstances, the undersigned denies 

Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. This case is to proceed as set 

forth in the Court’s Order dated March 24, 2020. (Doc. 88).

DONE this 9th day of April, 2020.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00461-B Document 92 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>