Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01862/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01862-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

Counsel are directed to confer with t heir staff about proper electronic filing

procedures to ensure that non-motion filings are not docketed as motions. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Darren Wietecha, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dollarhide Financial Group, Inc.,

Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co.,

CM Life Ins. Co. and MML Bay State

Life Ins. Co.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1862 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Comp any, C.M. Life Insurance

Company, and MML Bay State Life Insurance Company have filed a series of motions

concerning expert discovery. On October 13, 2005, t hey filed a motion seeking an

extension of t ime to provide expert reports, depose experts, and file dispositive motions.

See Doc. #28. On the same day, they filed an amended motion seeking the same relief. See

Doc. #30. On Oct ober 28, 2005, they filed a document which appears to be a reply in

support of the foregoing motions, but t hey docketed it as an independent motion. See

Doc. #36.1

 Defendant Dollarhide Financial Group, Inc. has joined in these motions. See

Doc. #37. 

Counsel are directed to review the Court ’s Case Management Order (Doc. #19)

Case 2:04-cv-01862-DGC Document 40 Filed 11/09/05 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

- 2 -

concerning resolution of discovery issues. The Order specifically states that “[t]he parties

shall not file written discovery motions wit hout leave of Court. If a discovery dispute

arises, the parties promptly shall contact the Court to request a t elep hone conference

concerning the dispute.” Doc. #19, ¶ 6(a). The adequacy of Plaintiff’s expert disclosures

and the scheduling of expert depositions clearly are discovery matters within this

paragraph. Defendants should have cont act ed the Court prior to filing their three motions.

The Court has nonetheless reviewed the motions and concludes as follows:

1. Defendants complain that Plaintiff waited until September 16, 2005, to

disclose medical exp ert s and has failed to provide reports from the experts as required by

Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Plaintiff suggests in resp onse that the designated experts are treating

physicians, a fact not disputed by Defendants. Expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) are

required only for “a witness who is ret ained or specially employed to provide expert

testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving

expert testimony . . . .” The Advisory Committee Notes to the rule make clear t hat the

report requirement does not apply to treating physicians: 

The requirement of a written report in paragraph 2(B), however, applies only

to those experts who are ret ained or specially employed to provide such

testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of a party regularly

involve the giving of such testimony . A treating physician, for example,

can be deposed or called to testify at trial without any requirement for a

written report. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Adv. Comm. Notes (1993 Amendments) (emphasis added). Thus, to the

extent the experts designated by Plaint iff on September 16, 2005, are treating physicians,

reports are not required. To the ext ent the experts identified by Plaintiff are experts other

than treating physicians and for whom reports are required, Defendants can move before

trial to exclude the experts’ testimony for failure to comply with the report requirement by

the September 16, 2005 deadline.

2. Once Defendants received the designation of treating phy sicians as expert

witnesses on Sep t ember 16, 2005, they should have promptly sought to depose such

Case 2:04-cv-01862-DGC Document 40 Filed 11/09/05 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 -

experts. Instead of doing so, Defendants waited until the day before their expert reports

were due before filing their motions. Defendants lost a month of time to depose Plaintiff’s

experts because of this delay. 

3. The Court would be justified in deny ing Defendants’ motion because of their

disregard of t he Court’s Case Management Order, their failure to depose Plaintiff’s treating

physicians, and their delay in seeking relief. Because Defendants’ actions apparently were

based on a misunderstanding of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), however, the Court will grant Defendants

one month – until December 9, 2005 – to depose the treating physicians identified as

expert witnesses by Plaintiff on September 16, 2005. Defendants may file responsive expert

reports on or before the close of business on January 6, 2006. Plaintiff may depose these

experts on or before January 27, 2006. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before

February 10, 2006. T his Order does not change any other deadline in this case, and the

parties are advised that the Court does not intend to further extend this schedule.

4. Defendants note in their filings that Plaint iff identified additional expert

witnesses after September 16, 2005. To the extent Plaintiff did so, the disclosures are

untimely. The Court’s Case Management Order required Plaint iff to provide full and

complete expert disclosures no later than September 16, 2005. Experts disclosed after this

date will not be permitted to testify as experts at trial. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, C.M. Life

Insurance Comp any, and MML Bay State Life Insurance Company’s Motion for Extension

of Time to Provide Expert Reports, to Depose Experts, and to File Dispositive Motions

(Doc. #28) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.

2. Defendants Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, C.M. Life

Insurance Company, and MML Bay State Life Insurance Company’s Amended Motion for

Ext ension of T ime to Provide Expert Reports, to Depose Experts, and to File Dispositive

Motions (Doc. #30) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.

Case 2:04-cv-01862-DGC Document 40 Filed 11/09/05 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 -

3. Defendants Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, C.M . Life

Insurance Company, and MML Bay State Life Insurance Company’s Motion for Extension

of Time to Provide Expert Reports, to Depose Experts, and to File Disp ositive Motions

(Doc. #36) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.

DATED this 9th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-01862-DGC Document 40 Filed 11/09/05 Page 4 of 4