UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rosemary A. Gilroy

v. Civil No. 07-cv-0074-JD

Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al.

O R D E R

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Rosemary A. Gilroy

brought suit against Ameriquest Mortgage Company (“Ameriquest”),

Ameriquest Mortgage Company Mortgage Services, Inc. (“AMC

Services”), and Citi Residential Lending, Inc. (“Citi”), alleging

predatory lending practices in violation of New Hampshire law. 

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on

Counts I, II, III, IV, and VI of Gilroy’s amended complaint, and

the only remaining claim in this case is the harassment claim, as

alleged in Count V. 

Gilroy sought leave to file the names and reports of

her expert witnesses by January 5, 2009, which was granted. On

January 5, Gilroy filed a list of expert witnesses, which

included Gilroy’s statement of each witness’s purported area of

expertise, address, and telephone number. On January 15, 2009,

the defendants moved to strike Gilroy’s list of expert witnesses,

contending that Gilroy had not complied with the requirements of

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), which requires a

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 87 Filed 02/27/09 Page 1 of 4
1It appears from the wording of the certification of service

in the defendants’ motion, that Gilroy may have been served only

electronically by CM/ECF. If that were the case, Gilroy would

not have been properly served.

2

written report from each expert, containing certain listed

information.

On February 24, 2009, Gilroy filed a motion to strike the

defendants’ motion to strike her expert list. In her motion,

Gilroy represents that the defendants failed to serve her with

their motion to strike.1 She acknowledges, however, that she

became aware of the motion on February 10, 2009, because it was

referenced in the defendants’ pretrial statement. She further

acknowledges, that when she contacted the defendants’ counsel,

counsel agreed to assent to her motion for leave to file a late

objection to the motion to strike. Instead of proceeding along

that reasonable course, Gilroy chose to move to strike the

defendants’ motion. Although the defendants have not yet

responded to Gilroy’s motion to strike, to avoid further delay,

the court will address the matters raised in both motions.

Discussion

I. Gilroy’s Motion to Strike

Whether Gilroy was properly served with the defendants’

motion to strike is immaterial, given the defendants’ proposal

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 87 Filed 02/27/09 Page 2 of 4
2The written report must contain:

(i) a complete statement of all opinions the

witness will express and the basis and

reasons for them; (ii) the date or other

information considered by the witness in

forming them; (iii) any exhibits that will be

used to summarize or support them; (iv) the

witness’s qualifications, including a list of

all publications authored in the previous 10

years; (v) a list of all other cases in

which, during the previous four years, the

witness testified as an expert at trial or by

deposition; and (vi) a statement of the

compensation to be paid for the study and

testimony in the case.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

3

that she file an assented-to motion for leave to file a late

objection. Gilroy offers no persuasive reason for failing to

follow that path. Therefore, Gilroy’s motion to strike the

defendants’ motion is denied.

II. Defendants’ Motion to Strike

Rule 26(a)(2)(A) requires a party to disclose “the identity

of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under

Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.” Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

further requires that disclosure include “a written report

prepared and signed by the witness” if the witness is “retained

or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case . .

. .”2 “A party who fails to disclose the necessary information

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 87 Filed 02/27/09 Page 3 of 4
4

under Rule 26(a), without substantial justification, is not

permitted to present the witness’ testimony at trial.” PenaCrespo v. Puerto Rico, 408 F.3d 10, 13 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)).

Gilroy’s expert disclosure fails to comply with the

requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and she offers no substantial

justification for her failure to produce the required expert

reports. Therefore, none of nine the witnesses listed in

Gilroy’s expert disclosure will be permitted to give expert

testimony at trial.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to strike

(document no. 74) Gilroy’s expert disclosure is granted and

Gilroy’s motion to strike (document no. 83) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

February 27, 2009

cc: Rosemary A. Gilroy, Pro se

 Thomas C. Tretter, Esq. 

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 87 Filed 02/27/09 Page 4 of 4