Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00404/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00404-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARLOS BYTHER, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO.04-00404-CG-B

 *

CITY OF MOBILE, et al. *

 *

Defendants. *

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion To

Strike Plaintiff’s Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. L. Jay

Turkewitz, M.D. (Doc. 77). In their motion, Defendants seek an

order striking Dr. Turkewitz’ supplemental expert report as

untimely. Defendants note that Plaintiff provided Dr.

Turkewitz’ initial expert report on January 28, 2005, nearly one

month beyond the deadline contained in the Court’s original

Scheduling Order. Although Defendants filed a motion to strike

Dr. Turkewitz’s initial report, along with the reports of

Plaintiff’s other experts because they were all untimely

submitted, the undersigned, upon consideration of Defendants’

motion, and Plaintiff’s opposition thereto, denied Defendants’

motion with respect to the first four experts identified by

Plaintiff. 

Subsequent thereto, Plaintiff provided to Defendants, at the

beginning of Dr. Turkewitz’s deposition in New Orleans on April

Case 1:04-cv-00404-CG-B Document 89 Filed 06/17/05 Page 1 of 5
1Plaintiff’s pleadings suggest otherwise. According to

Plaintiff’s pleadings, Mr. Cochran died on March 29, 2005, and

Plaintiff’s examination by Dr. Turkewitz proceeded as

scheduled on March 31, 2005. 

2

22, 2005, a supplemental report prepared by Dr. Turkewitz.

Defendants assert that while Dr. Turkewitz’s initial report

offered opinions regarding the likely cause of Plaintiff’s

injuries, the supplemental report includes opinions regarding

Plaintiff’s prognosis. Defendants also contend that because the

Court previously allowed Plaintiff to disclose four experts, a

month after the deadline contained in the original scheduling

order, it would be unfair and prejudicial to Defendants if

Plaintiff is allowed to rely on Dr. Turkewitz’ supplemental

report which was submitted at the beginning of Dr. Turkewitz’

deposition, nearly three months following Plaintiff’s untimely

initial disclosure of Dr. Turkewitz. 

In Plaintiff’s response, his counsel appears to suggest that

the untimely death of their firm’s senior partner, Johnnie L.

Cochran, Jr., somehow impacted counsel’s ability to timely

provide Dr. Turkewitz’s supplemental report1. The report offers

no explanation of why Plaintiff’s counsel did not foresee the

need to have Plaintiff examined by Dr. Turkewitz before March

2005, nor any explanation for the fact that Defendants were not

provided Dr. Turkewitz’s supplemental report until the beginning

Case 1:04-cv-00404-CG-B Document 89 Filed 06/17/05 Page 2 of 5
3

of his deposition on April 22, 2005 even though Plaintiff was

examined by Dr. Turkewitz on March 31, 2005.

Based upon a careful review of the record before the Court,

the undersigned concludes that the Supplemental Report of Dr.

Turkewitz should be stricken. While Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)

requires a party to supplement or correct disclosure upon

information later acquired, that provision does not license

parties to freely circumvent deadlines established in the

Court’s scheduling orders. As aptly noted by the Court in

Beller v. United States of America, 221 F.R.D. 689, 695 (D.N.M.

2003): 

To rule otherwise would create a system where

preliminary reports could be followed by supplementary

reports and there would be no finality to expert

reports, as each side, in order to buttress its case

or position, could “supplement” existing reports and

modify opinions previously given. This practice would

surely circumvent the full disclosure requirement

implicit in Rule 26 and would interfere with the

Court’s ability to set case management deadlines,

because new reports and opinions would warrant further

consultation with one’s own expert and virtually

require new rounds of depositions. That process would

hinder rather than facilitate settlement and the final

disposition of the case.

Id. at 695. See also Carter v. The Finely Hospital, 2003 WL

22232844, *2 (N. D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2003) (noting that “[i]t is

disingenuous to argue that the duty to supplement under Rule

26(e)(1) can be used as a vehicle to disclose entirely new

expert opinions after the [expert disclosure] deadline

Case 1:04-cv-00404-CG-B Document 89 Filed 06/17/05 Page 3 of 5
2As noted supra, Plaintiff’s initial expert disclosures

were filed nearly a month after the deadline contained in the

original Scheduling Order and necessitated an extension of

discovery and other deadlines in this case.

4

established by the court . . . .”). 

In the case sub judice, the supplemental report of Dr.

Turkewitz does not correct or clarify information contained in

the original report, which focused on the likely cause of

Plaintiff’s injuries. To the contrary, the supplemental report

is much broader, and includes opinions regarding a new issue,

Plaintiff’s diagnosis. As such, the supplemental report is

clearly designed to buttress Plaintiff’s case as opposed to

clarify information contained in the initial report.

Additionally, although Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Turkewitz

on March 31, 2005, the report was not provided to defense

counsel until the beginning of Dr. Turkewitz’s deposition on

April 22, 2005. Moreover, permitting Plaintiff to utilize Dr.

Turkewitz’s untimely supplemental report will result in further

delay2 as Defendants would need an opportunity to depose Dr.

Turkewitz and possibly submit supplemental reports from their

own experts regarding the expanded opinions contained in Dr.

Turkewitz’s supplemental report. 

Case 1:04-cv-00404-CG-B Document 89 Filed 06/17/05 Page 4 of 5
5

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Turkewitz’s

Supplemental Report is GRANTED.

DONE this 17TH day of June, 2005.

s/SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00404-CG-B Document 89 Filed 06/17/05 Page 5 of 5