Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-00006/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-00006-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WYMAN FRALEY, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05CV006-VPM

) [WO]

CINCINNATI INSURANCE )

COMPANY, a corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION

On 14 August 2006, the defendant filed a Supplemental Pre-Trial Disclosure of Expert

Witnesses (Doc. # 59). The defendant named Brian L. Benson, CIH, as an expert witness

and attached his curriculum vitae. Without naming him, the defendant also stated that it had

not received the curriculum vitae or expert report of “Tom Cooper”. In a later pleading,

Defendant’s Pre-Trial Disclosure of Witnesses, filed on 31 August 2006 (Doc. # 64), the

defendant named the following persons as witnesses:

1. Brian L. Benson 11. An unnamed inspector

2. Dr. Thomas Cooper, Ph.D. 12. Sarah Pieplow

3. Brian W. Hollis 13. Anthony Williams

4. Charles P. Stoneburner, III 14. Tom Ziegenfelder

5. Sandra Gilley 15. Aaron Jones

6. William Fraley 16. Any witnesses disclosed by

7. Victoria Fraley the plaintiffs

8. Thomas Haney

9. Casey Haney

10. An unnamed contractor 

 

The plaintiffs filed on 11 October 2006 a Motion to Strike certain of defendants’

Case 1:05-cv-00006-VPM Document 72 Filed 10/12/06 Page 1 of 4
Possibly because the plaintiffs identified the wrong filing date, the instant motion was docketed 1

as having challenged Doc. # 59, but its text indicates clearly that it was designed to challenge Docs # 59

and 64. The plaintiffs referenced “14 August 2006" (Doc. # 59) as the filing date, but their textual

references allude to the information included in Doc. # 64, filed on 31 August 2006. Accordingly, the

Clerk is DIRECTED to correct the docketing information. 

Once again, the plaintiffs cite the incorrect date, 31 August 2005. The order which set the 2

discovery deadline at 16 June 2006 was not issued on 31 August 2005, it was issued on 15 February

2006.

The Amended Scheduling order also directed the parties to “exchange the names, addresses and 3

telephone numbers of all witnesses, except witnesses solely for impeachment purposes” (Doc. # 33)

witnesses, to wit, the persons named in items 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 (Doc. # 70). The 1

Amended Scheduling Order entered in this case on 15 February 2006 (Doc. # 33) set the

discovery deadline at 16 June 2006 and specifically set the deadline for disclosure of expert

witnesses at 14 July 2006 for the plaintiffs and 14 August 2006 for the defendants. The 2

order also directed the parties to exchange the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of

all non-expert witnesses by 31 August 2006.

The court therefore makes the following findings:

1. The defendants met the deadline for disclosure of expert witness Brian L.

Benson by naming him in the pleading that was filed and served on 14 August

2006 and by attaching his curriculum vitae;

2. It is questionable whether the deadline was met for disclosing Dr. Thomas

Cooper, because (a) he was not named as a witness in the 14 August 2006

disclosure, and (b) his curriculum vitae was not included;

3. It is questionable whether the deadline was met for disclosing the non-expert

witnesses because the court is unaware whether defendants complied with

Section 9 of the Amended Scheduling Order.3

Case 1:05-cv-00006-VPM Document 72 Filed 10/12/06 Page 2 of 4
The “inspector” and the “contractor” were named again in Defendant’s Second Amended Pre- 4

Trial Disclosure of Expert Witnesses, filed on 11 October 2006 (Doc. # 71). They are stricken from that

list as well.

4. The order directed the parties to include witnesses’s names, thus “home

inspector”, “a representative and/or employee of Serve Pro, Inc.”, and

“unknown contractor” are not permissible witness notifications.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The plaintiffs’ motion to strike is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and

HELD in abeyance in part. 

2. To the extent that the plaintiffs request that the striking Brian L. Nelson as an

expert witness, the motion is DENIED. 

3. To the extent that the motion seeks to strike Dr. Thomas L. Cooper as an

expert witness, the motion is held in abeyance until the defendant makes

further submissions. On or before 20 October 2006, the defendant shall show

cause why the motion to strike Dr. Cooper should not be granted.

4. To the extent that the motion seeks to strike the unnamed witnesses, or the

witnesses referred to only by their function or responsibility, rather than by

name, the motion to strike is GRANTED.4

5. Because the defendant did not provide addresses and telephone numbers as the

scheduling order directed, on or before 20 October 2006, the defendant shall

show cause why the motion to strike all of the named witnesses, besides Dr.

Cooper, should not be granted.

Case 1:05-cv-00006-VPM Document 72 Filed 10/12/06 Page 3 of 4
DONE this 12 day of October, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00006-VPM Document 72 Filed 10/12/06 Page 4 of 4