Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08140/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08140-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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 originally filed a motion to strike Scott's opinions on July 12, 2012. We

ordered defendants to file an amended motion that complied with our page limits on

discovery motions, and set an expedited briefing schedule (doc. 106).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ruth Bradburn Mitchell, individually and

as personal representative of the Estate of

Kenneth Mitchell; Kenneth Christopher

Mitchell, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Flagstaff; Roy Taylor; Jane Doe

Taylor, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-08140-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' amended Rule 37(c)(1) motion to exclude expert

opinions of Ronald Scott (doc. 107), plaintiffs' response (doc. 116), and defendants' reply

(doc. 122).1

Our Rule 16 scheduling order set plaintiffs' expert disclosure deadline as April 20,

2012, defendants' expert disclosure deadline as May 21, 2012, and the rebuttal expert

disclosure deadline for all parties as June 20, 2012 (doc. 25 at 2). The final supplementation

deadline was July 20, 2012, and the discovery deadline is August 21, 2012. Rule 16 Order

at 2-3.

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 128 Filed 07/26/12 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

 We did not rule as to whether any of Serpa or Scott's opinions should be excluded.

- 2 -

Plaintiffs retained James Serpa as an expert witness in November, 2011. According

to plaintiffs, Serpa first notified them on April 3, 2012 that he needed to have physical

evidence released to him to finalize his conclusions. The parties engaged in extensive

discussions concerning the release of evidence. Ultimately, although defendants would not

release the evidence into Serpa's custody, defendants arranged for Serpa to inspect and test

the evidence at the Flagstaff Police Department on April 16, 2012. Serpa never showed up.

On April 20, 2012, plaintiffs disclosed Serpa's preliminary report, which defendants describe

as "completely devoid of any opinions, conclusions, examination results or data." Mot. at

1. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the report was "substandard." Response at 2.

Serpa unexpectedly quit on May 2, 2012. On May 11, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion

to substitute Ronald Scott as their expert witness, which we granted on June 20, 2012 (doc.

78).2

 In the meantime, defendants served their expert disclosure on May 21, 2012 (doc. 58).

Plaintiffs disclosed Scott's expert report on June 20, 2012. Defendants have scheduled

Scott's deposition for August 3, 2012.

If a party fails to provide information as required by Rule 26(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., the

improperly disclosed evidence is excluded unless the improper disclosure was either

substantially justified or harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v.

Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants argue that because

Serpa's preliminary report was deficient, Scott's recently disclosed opinions are untimely and

should be excluded. 

Plaintiffs do not contend that Serpa's preliminary report complied with Rule 26(a)(2),

Fed. R. Civ. P. They argue that they were substantially justified under the circumstances in

submitting Serpa's report in order to meet the April 20th deadline. We disagree. At the time

plaintiffs were required to disclose Serpa's report, Serpa had not yet quit. Plaintiffs have

offered no explanation for why they did not seek an extension of the expert disclosure

deadline, despite knowing that Serpa needed to inspect and test evidence to render his

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 128 Filed 07/26/12 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

 Plaintiffs did request a six-month extension of all deadlines on March 28, 2012,

arguing only that it would be burdensome to meet the deadlines because more discovery was

needed (doc. 37). The motion was denied (doc. 38).

- 3 -

conclusions, and despite knowing that Serpa failed to show up at an appointment to test the

evidence only four days before the deadline to disclose his report.3 Instead, they elected to

disclose Serpa's preliminary report on time, although the report was, in plaintiffs' own words,

substandard. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs' failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2),

Fed. R. Civ. P. was not substantially justified.

Plaintiffs argue that the disclosure of Scott's opinions on June 20th is harmless

because defendants have already had Scott's report for a month, did not take Serpa's

deposition, and have scheduled Scott's deposition. The late disclosure of Scott's opinions,

however, has affected defendants. Because defendants were required to disclose their experts

by May 21, 2012, defendants' experts were unable to review and consider Scott's opinions

in formulating their expert reports. See Schuette v. City of Phoenix, CV-08-2018-PHXMHM, 2010 WL 1253193, at *4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 25, 2010) (plaintiff's late disclosure of expert

report "unfairly and inappropriately forced" defendants' expert to prepare his report without

"the opportunity to respond specifically to [plaintiff's expert's] conclusions and analysis of

the relevant data"). Moreover, the disclosure of Scott's report on the rebuttal expert

disclosure deadline prevented defendants from disclosing rebuttal experts to counter Scott's

opinions.

Permitting plaintiffs to utilize Scott's expert opinions without providing any

accommodations to defendants would not be harmless. We recognize, however, that Serpa's

unexpected departure (and defendants' objection to the substitution of Scott) made it difficult

for plaintiffs to immediately address the preliminary report's deficiencies in a way that could

have lessened the harm to defendants. Moreover, defendants waited three weeks after

receiving Scott's report to file their motion to exclude, which may have compounded their

harm.

When faced with a similar situation of plaintiff's untimely disclosure of an expert

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 128 Filed 07/26/12 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 -

opinion, Schuette concluded that an appropriate remedy was to permit defendants to submit

an amended expert report and recoup attorneys' fees and costs incurred in obtaining the

amendment. Id. We conclude that the harm to defendants caused by the late disclosure of

Scott's opinions can be remedied without imposing the heavy sanction of exclusion. Given

that discovery has not yet closed and Scott's deposition has already been scheduled, a

solution similar to Schuette will sufficiently alleviate any harm. Defendants recognize that

the "only way to remedy the harm caused to Defendants would be to extend their rebuttal

expert disclosure deadline." Reply at 2. We can provide defendants with an opportunity to

rebut Scott's opinions without upsetting the other deadlines set forth in the Rule 16

scheduling order.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion to exclude expert opinions of

Ronald Scott (doc. 107).

IT IS ORDERED that defendants may have up to and including August 6, 2012 to

file an amended version of their expert report(s), limited to amendments that address Ronald

Scott's opinions.

IT IS ORDERED that defendants may have up to and including August 6, 2012 to

disclose any rebuttal experts, limited to experts who will rebut Ronald Scott's opinions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, after judgment has been entered in this case,

defendants may file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs related to obtaining an amended

version of their expert report(s) in accordance with LRCiv 54.2.

This order shall not be construed to affect any other deadline set forth in the

scheduling order.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 128 Filed 07/26/12 Page 4 of 4