Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00684/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00684-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BEVERLY VILLAFANA, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0684-WS-B

 )

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s objection to, and appeal from,

Magistrate Judge Bivins’ ruling of May 16, 2007, (Doc. 39), to the extent that ruling

precludes the plaintiff from offering the expert testimony, as a sanction for discovery

abuses. (Doc. 43). 

The plaintiff insists that the Judge Bivins’ ruling is contrary to law because it

constitutes a dispositive ruling beyond her authority under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(a). The plaintiff explains that the critical dispute is whether her losses were

caused by flood (as the insurer determined) or by wind (a covered peril), that the case

comes down to a “battle of experts,” and that Judge Bivins’ ruling robs her of the ability

to show that the losses were from wind, effectively handing victory to the insurer. The

plaintiff offers not a single authority in support of her ipse dixit that Judge Bivins’ ruling

is impermissibly dispositive.

In fact, as the defendant points out, the weight of authority holds that a magistrate

judge’s order that excludes a plaintiff’s expert from testifying is not a dispositive ruling. 

E.g., Circle R, Inc. v. Trail King Industries, Inc., 1999 WL 33963992 at *1 (D. Neb.

1999); Ferriso v. Conway Organization, 1995 WL 580197 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Cook

v. Rockwell International Corp., 147 F.R.D. 237, 243-44 (D. Colo. 1993); see also

Benedict v. Zimmer, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 305, 313 (N.D. Iowa 2005) (ruling granting

plaintiffs leave to file their expert report after the defendant filed a motion for summary

judgment was non-dispositive even though, were the ruling reversed, the plaintiffs could

Case 1:06-cv-00684-WS-B Document 49 Filed 06/22/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

not survive summary judgment). Contra Yang v. Brown University, 149 F.R.D. 440, 443-

43 (D.R.I. 1993). Other authorities, while not involving the exclusion of a plaintiff’s

expert, agree. E.g., Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hosiery, 179 F.R.D. 450,

456 (D.N.J. 1998) (“I review a magistrate judge’s evidentiary determinations regarding

expert testimony, even where they may ultimately affect the outcome of a claim or

defense, as non-dispositive orders entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).”). The

reasoning supporting this view was well expressed in Jesselson v. Outlet Associates

Limited Partnership, 784 F. Supp. 1223 (E.D. Va. 1991): 

It is true that, as in this case, the exclusion of certain evidence can substantially

effect [sic] a party’s ability to present its case. The ‘dispositive’ nature of

Plaintiffs’ case is simply a function of the case itself. It only appears dispositive

because Plaintiffs do not have any additional admissible evidence to present. 

Plaintiffs have based their case on evidence that the Magistrate Judge found

inadmissible and now, according to their own statements, have no evidence by

which to prove their case and cannot expect to prevail. This does not mean,

however, that Plaintiffs are barred from continuing with the action. Magistrate did

not reach the merits of Plaintiff’s case, but merely made evidentiary rulings

without regard to the effect of the rulings on the outcome of the litigation.

Id. at 1228. The plaintiff offers, and the Court detects, no reason to depart from this wellworn path.

A magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive matter must be upheld unless

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The plaintiff does not argue

that Judge Bivins’ order is clearly erroneous, and her only argument that the ruling is

contrary to law is the discredited one that it was impermissibly dispositive.

For the reasons set forth above, Judge Bivins’ ruling is affirmed. 

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00684-WS-B Document 49 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 2