Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02963/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02963-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

Lori Jo Giddings,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Vison House Production, Inc., d/b/a

Designer Art Direct; Cindy Rarig,

individually and d/b/a Designer Art Direct;

Jonathan Rarig, individually and d/b/a

Designer Direct; John/Jane Does I

through V, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-2963-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert

Witness (Doc. 51). Plaintiff has filed a Response (Doc. 56) and Defendants have filed a

Reply (Doc. 60). The Court has considered the papers submitted and hereby issues the

following Order. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), “a party shall disclose to other parties

the identity of any person who may be used at trial [as an expert],” and provide a “written

report” containing certain, specified information “at the times and in the sequence directed

by the court . . .” A party who “without substantial justification fails to disclose information

required by Rule 26(a) . . . is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence

Case 2:05-cv-02963-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/30/08 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 -

at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). Such exclusion of witnesses and information not properly disclosed

under Rule 26(a) “is automatic in the sense that there is no need for the opposing party to

make a motion to compel disclosure . . .” prior to exclusion. Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.

Miller, Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2289.1 (2d ed. 1994); see also

Yeti By Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The

Advisory Committee Notes describe it as a ‘self-executing,’ ‘automatic’ sanction . . . .”)

“Implicit in Rule 37(c)(1) is that the burden is on the party facing sanctions to prove

harmlessness.” Yeti By Molly Ltd., 259 F.3d at 1107. 

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order in this case, the expert report deadline was January

21, 2008. On January 25, 2008, three days after the deadline, Plaintiff disclosed four experts.

Plaintiff did not move to disclose her experts late. To date, it appears Plaintiff has not

disclosed any expert reports. Defendants have moved to strike all four experts because of

this deficiency. 

In her Response, Plaintiff disclaims three of her previously-disclosed experts,

contending that she will use only a single handwriting expert at trial. Regarding the

handwriting expert’s written report, Plaintiff argues that her failure to disclose this expert

report is harmless and does not prejudice the Defendants because discovery is ongoing and

because a trial date has not yet been set. Plaintiff also attempts to justify her failure to

disclose an expert report by arguing first that Defendants have given inadequate discovery

responses, and that the instant motion violates the local rules, which do not provide for such

a motion to strike. 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, her failure to disclose an expert report does, in fact,

harm the Defendants. Without the expert report, Defendants have been unable to conduct

the necessary discovery to rebut Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion. Nor have Defendants been able

Case 2:05-cv-02963-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/30/08 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

1

 Note that Rule 7.2(m) prefaces its federal rules it lists with the wording “such as,”

indicating that the rules provided are examples of rules that authorize a motion to strike

rather than an exhaustive list. 

- 3 -

to adequately depose the expert. Therefore, with the discovery deadline now past, clearly

Defendants have been prejudice by not having Plaintiff’s expert report. 

Furthermore, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s assertion that her lack of an

expert report is somehow justified by Defendants’ inadequate discovery responses. If

Plaintiff was dissatisfied with Defendants’ discovery responses, Plaintiff should have raised

the issue well before the expert report deadline. Instead, Plaintiff’s claim comes only after

Defendants moved to strike her experts, a month and a half after the expert disclosure

deadline. 

Finally, Plaintiff is mistaken about Defendants’ violation of Local Rule 7.2(m).

Plaintiff claims the Rule does not authorize a motion to strike an expert. Rule 7.2(m) states

as follows: 

A motion to strike may be filed only if it is authorized by statute or rule such

as federal rules of civil procedure 12(f), 26(g)(2), or 37(b)(2)(C), or if it seeks

to strike any part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited

(or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.

Thus, a motion to strike is warranted if authorized by a federal rule. Rule 7.2(m) provides

a number of examples of rules that, if violated, allow a party to file a motion to strike.

However, the list is not exhaustive.1

 In any event, Defendants’ Motion is authorized under

Rule 37(b)(2)(C), which provides for sanctions, including striking pleadings, claims, and

defenses for failure to comply with a discovery order. Therefore, even though the list of

rules itemized in Local Rule 7.2(m) is not exhaustive, Rule 37(b)(2)(C) is specifically listed

in Rule 7.2(m) and, in fact, authorizes Defendants’ Motion to Strike. 

Case 2:05-cv-02963-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/30/08 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 -

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that her failure to disclose an expert reports

is justified or harmless. Plaintiff has not made such a showing. Accordingly, the Court will

strike Plaintiff’s expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses

(Doc. 51).

 DATED this 28th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02963-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/30/08 Page 4 of 4