UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES HALL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 

v. Case No. 4:14-cv-12706 

Honorable Linda V. Parker 

 

IKEA PROPERTY, INC., a 

foreign profit corporation, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________/

 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS, ANDREW J. SIEVERS (ECF NO. 74) 

 Plaintiff Charles Hall (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit asserting claims of 

premises liability and negligence against Defendant Ikea Property, Inc. 

(“Defendant” or “Ikea”). The matter is currently scheduled for trial on November 

14, 2016. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have filed motions in limine in anticipation 

of trial, which presently remain pending before the Court. In those motions, 

Plaintiff seeks to: 

 Strike Defendant’s Expert Witness, Andrew J. Sievers (ECF No. 74); and 

 Strike Nonparty At Fault Claim (ECF No. 75). 

Defendant’s motions in limine seek to: 

 Exclude Testimony of DeAndre Kinney (ECF No. 76); and 

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 86 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1195
2 

 Preclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Wage Loss Claim (ECF No. 77). 

Both parties have filed briefs in response to the opposing party’s motions. (ECF 

Nos. 78-84.) The Court now resolves the Motion to Strike Defendant’s Expert 

Witness, Andrew J. Sievers. (ECF No. 74.) 

I. Factual Background 

 Plaintiff filed this suit against Defendant for an injury he obtained through 

the course of his employment at J.W. Logistics (“JW”). (ECF No. 28, ¶¶ 3, 7.) 

This Court issued a scheduling order on October 14, 2014, requiring the parties to 

submit their lay and expert witness lists by November 14, 2014. (ECF No. 18 at 

Pg ID 68.) Both parties submitted timely lay and expert witness lists. (ECF Nos. 

21, 22.) Defendant’s Witness List included liability experts, but did not include 

Andrew J. Sievers (“Sievers”) as a potential witness. (ECF No. 21 at Pg ID 78-

84.) 

 Defendant filed a supplemental witness list on August 23, 2016 naming 

Sievers as an expert witness on the issue of liability. (ECF No. 70 at Pg ID 891-

92.) On September 8, 2016, Defendant provided Plaintiff with Sievers’ expert 

report.1

 (ECF No. 83 at Pg ID 1160.) 

 

1 The Court notes that the date the expert report was submitted to Plaintiff is in 

dispute. Plaintiff contends the expert report was not submitted until September 11, 

2016 via e-mail. (ECF No. 74 at Pg ID 902.) This dispute does not affect the 

Court’s decision.

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 86 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 1196
3 

 Defendant argues that Sievers’ testimony should be allowed, because “[o]nly 

the identity of this expert changed, not the subject matter of the testimony.” (ECF 

No. 83 at Pg ID 1159.) Plaintiff argues that this late disclosure still violates Rule 

26(a)(1) and should not be admissible. (ECF No. 74 at Pg ID 903.) Further, 

Plaintiff points out deficiencies within the actual report. Plaintiff asserts that the 

expert report fails to include the information required under Rule 26. 

II. Legal Standard 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (“Rule 26”) governs disclosure of expert 

testimony. Under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), parties are required to provide a written report 

unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). A 

party who fails to provide an expert report in accordance with Rule 26(a) 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). 

 Rule 26 also governs the timeliness of disclosures by experts. Rule 26(2)(D) 

states that a party must make expert testimony disclosures “at least 90 days before 

the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial” or within 30 days after 

another party’s disclosure if the expert witness testimony is intended to contract or 

rebut evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(2)(D). District courts have broad discretion to 

exclude untimely disclosed expert-witness testimony. Matilla v. S. Kentucky Rural 

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 86 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 1197
4 

Elec. Co-op Corp., 240 F. App’x 35, 42 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Pride v. BIC Corp., 

218 F.3d 566, 578-79 (6th Cir. 2000)). 

III. Analysis 

 The Court first notes that neither party submitted Sievers’ expert report to 

determine whether it adheres to the requirements for Rule 26. Therefore, the Court 

is unable to analyze the sufficiency of his report under Rule 26(2)(B). The Court 

now turns to an analysis of the timing of the disclosure of Sievers as an expert 

witness. 

 Defendant filed the supplemental witness list that included Sievers on 

August 23, 2016. (ECF No. 70.) The expert report was not submitted to Plaintiff 

until September 8, 2016. (ECF No. 83 at Pg ID 1160.) Both submissions violate 

the 90-day requirement under Rule 26(2)(D). Trial is scheduled for November 14, 

2016. 90 days before trial falls on August 16, 2016. Therefore, Defendant filed an 

untimely expert report. The Court therefore excludes the expert testimony of 

Andrew J. Sievers pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Expert 

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 86 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 1198
5 

Witness, Andrew J. Sievers (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 2, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, November 2, 2016, by electronic and/or 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 86 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 1199