Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_22-cv-02186/USCOURTS-arwd-2_22-cv-02186-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

MANES’ PHARMACY, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. No. 2:22-cv-2186

AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Manes’ Pharmacy, Inc.’s (“Manes”) motion (Doc. 64) to strike 

the Report of Deborah Komoroski. Defendant AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation 

(“AmerisourceBergen”) responded in opposition (Doc. 75). For the reasons given below, Manes’s

motion will be DENIED.

AmerisourceBergen designated Ms. Komoroski as a rebuttal expert. (Doc. 64, p. 1). Ms. 

Komoroski prepared a report as part of her role as an expert. See Doc. 64-2. Manes now moves 

to strike her report on the grounds that she failed to disclose previous expert testimony. (Doc. 64, 

p. 1). Specifically, Manes argues Ms. Komoroski should have disclosed her testimony in two 

cases: Suntree Pharmacy, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., No. 6:19-cv-1523 (M.D. Fla.)

and Miller Pharmacy Servs. LLC d/b/a Prescription Shoppe Pharmacy v. AmerisourceBergen 

Drug Corp., No. 3:21-cv-207 (W.D. La.). AmerisourceBergen responds that Ms. Komoroski 

testified as a fact witness in the Suntree case and that she never testified in Miller. (Doc. 75, p. 2).

A party’s expert witness must prepare a written report that contains, among other 

information, “a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as 

an expert at trial or by deposition. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(v). Manes contends Ms. 

Komoroski violated this rule by not disclosing her involvement in the Suntree and Miller cases. 

Case 2:22-cv-02186-TLB Document 88 Filed 05/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

Based on that alleged violation, Manes seeks to strike her report because of her failure to disclose 

that required information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 

Manes’s argument fails because Ms. Komoroski did not act as an expert in either case. In 

the Suntree case, Ms. Komoroski testified as a fact witness. She said so in her deposition. See

Doc. 64-3, p. 12 (internally numbered 45:1–46:1). Manes has offered no evidence otherwise. In 

the Miller case, Ms. Komoroski never testified. AmerisourceBergen explains that Ms. Komoroski 

had been scheduled to testify as an expert in an evidentiary hearing related to a motion for a 

preliminary injunction. (Doc. 75, p. 3). However, before the hearing occurred, the Miller court 

denied the motion and cancelled the hearing. Id. This Court’s independent review of the Miller

docket confirms the same.

Ms. Komoroski did not testify as an expert in either the Suntree or Miller cases. Therefore, 

she had no expert witness testimony to disclose from the four years before her report. The Court 

will not strike her expert report.0F

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Manes’s motion (Doc. 64) to strike the report 

of Deborah Komoroski is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 2024.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III

P.K. HOLMES, III

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

1 At this time, the Court expresses no opinion on Manes’s pending motion to exclude Ms. 

Komoroski under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 

U.S. 579 (1993). See Doc. 69.

Case 2:22-cv-02186-TLB Document 88 Filed 05/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>