Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00313/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

 Defendants’ motions and replies, and plaintiff’s responses exceed this court’s twopage limit on discovery motions, responses and replies.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Saundra L. Cunningham, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-00313-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants’ motion to exclude testimony of Richard Payne

(doc. 38), plaintiff’s response (doc. 48), defendants’ reply (doc. 49), defendants’ motion to

exclude testimony of Henry Dlugacz (doc. 39), plaintiff’s response (doc. 46), defendants’

reply (doc. 51), defendants’ motion to exclude testimony of Raymond Patterson (doc. 40),

plaintiff’s response (doc. 47), and defendant’s reply (doc. 50).1

 

Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County on

September 29, 2011, alleging that her son, Duron Cunningham, committed suicide while

incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison in Florence because defendants acted negligently and

with deliberate indifference. Defendants timely removed the action to this court. Our Rule

Case 2:12-cv-00313-FJM Document 57 Filed 07/02/13 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 -

16 Scheduling Order set plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline as November 2, 2012,

defendants’ expert disclosure deadline as December 7, 2012, and the rebuttal expert deadline

for both parties as January 11, 2013. See Doc. 9 at 2. The parties were required to finally

supplement all discovery related to the expert opinions on or before February 8, 2013. Id.

The final discovery deadline was April 26, 2013. Id. at 3. On October 17, 2012, the parties

jointly moved to extend the expert disclosure deadlines by 30 days because of a delay in

deposing witnesses (doc. 19). We denied that motion because the parties did not show any

diligence in obtaining the depositions during the six month period provided for in the Rule

16 Scheduling Order. On November 2, 2012, plaintiff disclosed Dr. Richard Payne

(“Payne”) and Henry Dlugacz (“Dlugacz”) as expert witnesses. Plaintiff disclosed Dr.

Raymond Patterson (“Patterson”) as a rebuttal expert on January 11, 2013. Defendants move

to exclude the experts’ testimony. 

I

Defendants move to exclude the opinions Payne expressed in a letter dated April 22,

2013 because it was disclosed eleven days after the close of discovery. Plaintiff argues that

good cause exists to allow Payne's supplemental opinion into evidence because due to his

workload the letter was not ready for disclosure until after the discovery cut-off date. An

expert’s workload is not good cause for delayed disclosure. However, defendants have not

claimed prejudice. Accordingly, we deny defendants’ motion to exclude Payne’s testimony

(doc. 38). 

II

Next, defendants move to exclude Dlugacz’s opinion that defendants were negligent

in their duty to protect Duron Cunningham (“Cunningham”) from a foreseeable suicide.

Defendants argue that Dlugacz is not qualified to testify regarding the psychological and

psychiatric care delivered to Cunningham because he is not a psychologist, psychotherapist

or psychiatrist. In Arizona, the standard of care for medical personnel can be proven only

by expert witness testimony unless, “the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layman

could recognize it without difficulty.” Coolidge v. U.S., 2000 WL 300940, 3 (9th Cir. 2000)

Case 2:12-cv-00313-FJM Document 57 Filed 07/02/13 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 -

(citation omitted). To qualify an expert to express an opinion on what the standard of care

is for the defendant medical personnel, plaintiff must show that the expert has “more than a

casual familiarity with the specialty of the defendant physician.” Gaston v. Hunter, 121 Ariz.

33, 53, 588 P.2d 326, 346 (Ct. App.1978). Here, plaintiff has not shown that Dlugacz

qualifies to offer standard of care opinions with respect to the psychiatrists and

psychologists’ delivery of mental healthcare. Therefore, Dlugacz may not testify regarding

the reasonableness of the psychiatric and psychological care or medication administered to

Cunningham. Dlugacz may, however, testify about services provided to Cunningham by any

social worker or other similarly qualified person.

Plaintiff asserts that Dlugacz's opinions concern whether the process, manner, and

mental health services afforded to Cunningham were in compliance with national standards.

Defendants argue that Dlugacz is not qualified to render such opinions because he has not

reviewed the policies and procedures of the Arizona Department of Corrections. An expert

is not permitted to give an opinion simply based on his “subjective belief or unsupported

speculation.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2795, 125

L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Dlugacz may testify as to whether he believes defendants’ actions were

reasonable based on objective national standards for correctional mental health services, but

any testimony that is based on nothing more than his personal views will be excluded.

III

Defendants argue that Patterson's testimony should be excluded entirely because he

is a case-in-chief expert who should have been disclosed by the initial expert disclosure

deadline. Plaintiff counters that Patterson was retained to rebut defendants’ expert’s medical

standard of care opinions, and therefore he was timely disclosed at the rebuttal expert

deadline. 

The issue is whether Patterson’s report “is intended solely to contradict or rebut

evidence on the same subject matter identified by [defendants’ expert].” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(2)(D)(ii). Patterson's opinion is that defendants "acted negligently by failing to take

Case 2:12-cv-00313-FJM Document 57 Filed 07/02/13 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 -

reasonable steps to provide the appropriate standard of care to protect Duron Cunningham

from what appears to have been a foreseeable and preventable suicide." Doc. 40, Ex. 1.

Although Patterson’s opinion is contrary to the opinion offered by defendants’ expert, his

report does not directly address that opinion or indicate that he reviewed it in preparation for

his report. We agree with defendants that Patterson’s opinion merely echoes Dlugacz’s

opinion. It appears that plaintiff decided to offer Patterson as a rebuttal expert solely

because, unlike Dlugacz, he is a licensed physician who specializes in psychiatry. Rebuttal

designations and disclosures are not intended to provide a party with the opportunity to select

an expert with more appealing qualifications, to present the same opinions provided by their

initial experts. Because Patterson’s report is not intended solely to contradict defendants’

expert’s opinion, it is not proper rebuttal, and was untimely disclosed. Accordingly, we grant

defendants’ motion to exclude Patterson’s testimony.

IV

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants’ motion to exclude testimony of Richard

Payne (doc. 38).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING IN PART defendants’ motion to

exclude testimony of Henry Dlugacz (doc. 39). Henry Dlugacz may not testify regarding the

reasonableness of the psychiatric and psychological care or medication administered to

Duron Cunningham. He may only testify about the services and delivery of correctional

mental health provided by social workers or based on objective national standards. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to exclude

testimony of Raymond Patterson (doc. 40). 

DATED this 1st day of July, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00313-FJM Document 57 Filed 07/02/13 Page 4 of 4