Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02873/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02873-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

Pearl Wilson, Personal Representative of

the Estate of Phillip Wilson, deceased;

Terry Wilson and Pearl Wilson,

surviving parents of Phillip Wilson,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Maricopa County, a public entity, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2873 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Expert Report of

Dr. Burstein. Dkt. #120. Plaintiffs have filed a response and Defendants have filed a reply.

Dkt. ##136, 144. 

The Court set a deadline of April 14, 2006, for the parties to provide “full and

complete expert disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.” Dkt. #62. The Court subsequently set a deadline of May 22, 2006, for

Defendants to file an expert report by Dr. Hammer. Dkt. #108. The Court gave Plaintiffs

until June 16, 2006 to file a rebuttal report. Id. 

Defendants contend that any attempt by Dr. Burstein to supplement his expert report

after April 14, 2006, will be untimely. Plaintiffs contend that Dr. Burstein’s supplemental

opinion will in part constitute a timely rebuttal to Dr. Hammer’s report. Because Defendants

chose to file their motion before Dr. Burstein’s supplemental report was produced, however,

the Court has no copy of the report and cannot determine whether Dr. Burstein expressed any

Case 2:04-cv-02873-DGC Document 288 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 2
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 -

opinions after April 14, 2006 that were not in rebuttal to Dr. Hammer’s opinions. Similarly,

Defendants’ reply suggests that their own expert, Dr. Hammer, intends to file a supplemental

report. Dkt. #144. The nature and extent of this report is not addressed by the parties. 

The Court intends to enforce the expert disclosure deadlines. With the exception of

Dr. Hammer, full and complete expert reports were required by April 14, 2006. Dkt. #62.

The parties had ample time to conduct the discovery necessary to produce complete reports

by this date. Dr. Hammer’s full and complete expert report was due by May 22, 2006.

Dkt. #108. Defendants were permitted to file a rebuttal report by June 30, 2006 (id.), but the

Court has made clear in this case that “[r]ebuttal experts shall be limited to responding to

opinions stated by initial experts.” Dkt. #62. Moreover, the Court specifically advised the

parties that “Supplementation of these expert reports will not be permitted absent agreement

of both parties. Thus, full and complete expert disclosures must be made by the dates set

forth above.” Id.

Because the parties’ briefing does not describe the supplemental reports that have

been attempted, the Court cannot determine which reports will be permitted at trial.

Defendants’ motion to strike will be denied as premature, and the parties will be required to

address these issues in motions in limine. The parties are informed, however, that the Court

intends to enforce the deadlines and its previous orders.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Expert

Report of Dr. Burstein (Dkt. #120) is denied as premature.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02873-DGC Document 288 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2