IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

EDWARD HOLMES, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 02 C 7266 

 v. ) 

 ) Judge Brown 

DR. KUL SOOD, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH MOTION IN LIMINE TO BAR 

FRCP 26(A)(2)(B) TESTIMONY FROM DR. KUL SOOD

 Defendant, Dr. Kul Sood, by his attorneys Charysh & Schroeder, Ltd., for his response to 

plaintiff’s fifth motion in limine to bar FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) testimony from Dr. Sood states: 

 Plaintiff’s fifth motion in limine seeks to bar certain testimony from Dr. Sood on the 

mistaken basis that “the only Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure made by defendant was a retained expert 

witness, Dr. Clark.” Plaintiff correctly notes that Dr. Sood is identified as an expert witness in 

the Final Pre-Trial Order, however incorrectly notes that his expected testimony is not 

“particularized.” Neither of these bases is correct in fact. On August 4, 2004, defendant faxed 

and mailed to plaintiff the attached correspondence which states: 

 In accordance with Rule 26(a)(2), attached is the report of our expert, Dr. 

John H. Clark. 

 Additionally, please be advised that Dr. Kul Sood shall testify regarding 

the care and treatment rendered to the plaintiff at the Will County Adult Detention 

Facility. He will testify regarding the plaintiff’s symptoms and subjective 

complaints as documented in the record of treatment at the Will County Adult 

Detention Facility, the records he reviewed of prior treatment as described in his 

deposition testimony, and the chronic nature of plaintiff’s condition as it existed 

during his treatment. Dr. Sood will testify that the conservative course of care 

and treatment rendered by him and other medical personnel at the Will County 

Detention Facility was timely and appropriate in view of the plaintiff’s symptoms 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 111 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:794
and prior medical history. (See attached fax coversheet, correspondence, and fax 

confirmation, sans report – Exhibit A) 

 

 Furthermore, defendant set forth the general nature of Dr. Sood’s testimony in the PreTrial order with more particularity than plaintiff set forth his expert’s anticipated testimony. 

Plaintiff failed to particularize at all the testimony he plans to elicit from his other treating 

physicians. As set forth above, and as Exhibit A clearly shows, defendant expressly complied 

with this court’s standing order. As such plaintiff’s motion should be denied. 

 Plaintiff notes in footnote 2 that defendant has filed a motion in limine to bar plaintiff 

from calling plaintiff’s other treating physicians as witnesses in this matter. As set forth in 

defendant’s motion, plaintiff did not disclose plaintiff’s other treating physicians pursuant to 

Rule 26(a)(2) and therefore the adage set forth by plaintiff “what is good for the goose is good 

for the gander” does not apply. 

 WHEREFORE, defendant, Dr. Kul Sood respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny 

plaintiff’s Fifth Motion in Limine, and grant such other further relief as the court deems just and 

proper. 

 CHARYSH & SCHROEDER, LTD. 

 

 _/s/ Michael J. Charysh___________

Michael J. Charysh (ARDC 6187455) 

CHARYSH & SCHROEDER, LTD. 

33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1300 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 372-8338 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 111 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:795
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned attorney certifies that he served a copy of the foregoing documents on all 

attorneys of record via electronic notification to EFC participants, and by U.S. Mail to non-EFC 

participants at their respective addresses by depositing copies of same with proper postage prepaid 

in the U.S. Mail at 33 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois at or before 5:00 p.m. on May 1, 

2006. 

 

 By: /s/ Michael J. Charysh__

 Attorney for Defendant 

SERVICE LIST: 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 111 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:796