Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

 Plaintiffs claim they served the Amended Report on August 11, 2010. Response at

5 (doc. 1224). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,

Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation.

_________________________________

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

All Personal Injury Actions.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendants’ “Motion to Strike Amended Report and Additional

Opinions of Steven Pike, M.D.” (doc. 1064), plaintiffs’ response (doc. 1224), and

defendants’ reply (doc. 1276). Defendants argue that Dr. Pike’s amended report is untimely,

in violation of Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P., and our Rule 16 Scheduling Order (doc. 183).

Defendants further allege that at his deposition, Dr. Pike references articles and ideas that

were not addressed in either of his reports. 

Our Rule 16 order set a deadline for disclosures of July 15, 2010. Plaintiffs timely

served Dr. Pike’s original report, but then served an amended report a month later, on August

16, 2010.1

 The new report included several new sections and one expanded section.

Compare Pike Report (doc. 1067-9) with Pike Amended Report (doc. 1067-10). Defendants

timely served several expert reports on August 16, 2010 (doc. 694), in accordance with the

Rule 16 deadline. The parties also agreed to an extension of the deadline for defendants to

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1351 Filed 02/17/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

serve an additional expert report and amended reports to September 13, 2010. Defendants

deposed Dr. Pike on September 21, 2010. In his deposition, Dr. Pike explained that he had

run out of time in drafting his report, and that plaintiffs’ counsel assured him he would be

able to supplement it at a later date. Pike Deposition at 23 (doc. 1068-1). Defendants claim

they were prejudiced because they and their experts had to review new material cited by Dr.

Pike, analyze new and expanded opinions, and prepare amended reports, all of which could

have been avoided. 

Parties must disclose expert testimony “at the times and in the sequence that the court

orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D). An expert disclosure must be accompanied by a written

report that includes: “ (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and

the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming

them; (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(2)(B). A party should supplement its expert disclosure in a timely manner if its learns

the disclosure is materially incomplete or incorrect, and the corrective information has not

otherwise been made known to the other parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). This rule does not

allow parties to supplement their reports with information that was available prior to the

disclosure deadline. See Salgado by Salgado v. General Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 735 (7th

Cir. 1998) (upholding district’s court exclusion of untimely expert report despite counsel’s

explanation that the report was preliminary). 

If a party fails to comply with the disclosure rules, “the party is not allowed to use that

information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the

failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); see also Torres

v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1212 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We have explained that Rule

37(c)(1) gives teeth to this requirement by forbidding the use at trial of any information

required to be disclosed by Rule 26(a) that is not properly disclosed.”). It is plaintiffs’

burden to show that the failure to comply with Rule 26(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., is substantially

justified or harmless. Torres, 548 F.3d at 1213 (burden is on the party facing the sanction

to demonstrate that the failure to comply with Rule 26(a) is substantially justified or

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1351 Filed 02/17/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

harmless; the other party is not required to articulate how he would be prejudiced.). 

While plaintiffs’ delay in serving Dr. Pike’s amended report is regrettable and not

substantially justified, it was ultimately harmless. First, the parties’ negotiations to extend

the deadlines for serving defendants’ expert reports gave defendants’ experts’ sufficient time

to amend their reports in response to Dr. Pike’s amended report. Second, defendants did not

depose Dr. Pike until over a month after plaintiffs served his amended report. This is

sufficient time to prepare for his deposition. Third, defendants’ decision to wait three months

to object to the amended report further suggests they were not significantly harmed by the

delay. 

Clearly plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve the report inconvenienced defendants and

their experts, creating extra work and expense. However, this is not the kind of harm that

justifies the extreme measure of striking the amended report. Defendants had an adequate

opportunity to respond to Dr. Pike’s amended report, and thus the delay did not harm their

ability to present their case. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants’ “Motion to Strike Amended

Report and Additional Opinions of Steven Pike, M.D.” (doc. 1064). 

DATED this 17th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1351 Filed 02/17/11 Page 3 of 3