UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Tracy Adams

and Paul Adams

v. Civil No. 08-cv-425-JL

Opinion No. 2009 DNH 181

J. Meyers Builders, Inc.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Tracy and Paul Adams have sued J. Myers Builders, Inc.

(“Myers”) for negligently starting a fire that destroyed their

home and its contents. A Myers employee allegedly caused the

fire by improperly disposing of material contaminated with a wood

preservative, which combusted. Each party moves in limine to

preclude certain of the other party’s expert witnesses from

testifying at the upcoming jury trial; the Adamses have also

moved in limine to exclude any reference to their property

insurance, which compensated them for some, but not all, of their

losses. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this

matter between the Adamses, Maryland citizens, and Myers, a New

Hampshire corporation, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (diversity).

 After oral argument, the court grants the Adamses’ motion

to exclude Myers’s damages experts and any reference to the

Adamses’ property insurance, and denies Myers’s motions to

exclude the Adamses’ liability and damages experts. Because

Myers failed to provide timely reports from its damages experts

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 1 of 31
2

as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), those witnesses cannot testify

at trial by operation of Rule 37(c)(1). No report was required

of the Adamses’ damages expert under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), however,

and their liability expert employed a sufficiently reliable

methodology so as to testify to his conclusions at trial. 

Finally, evidence of the Myers’s property insurance is

inadmissible under Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

I. Background

The Adamses entered into a written contract with Myers to

build them a custom home in Littleton, New Hampshire, just north

of Franconia Notch in the White Mountains. While Myers was at

work on the house, the Adamses moved into a rental property

nearby. After that property was sold to a third party, requiring

the Adamses to move out, Myers agreed to finish one or two rooms

in the Littleton house so that the Adamses could begin living

there, even though construction was still incomplete.

The Adamses moved their furniture and other belongings into

the unfinished home, storing most of the items in the basement. 

At that point, much of the home had been wired for electricity,

including outlet boxes, though the sockets had not been

installed. The Adamses took up residence in one of the bedrooms,

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 2 of 31
3

plugging a lamp into an extension cord that Myers employees had

run from the house’s switchboard.

On July 4, 2007, a day or two after the Adamses had moved

in, a Myers employee, William Blay, was at work in a corner of

the basement, preparing cedar shakes for installation on the

exterior of the home. This process involved dipping each shake

by hand into a five-gallon tub of a Sikkens brand wood

preservative, “Cetol SRD,” wiping off the excess with a sponge,

and placing the shake into another five-gallon tub to dry. The

shakes were then leaned along the basement wall to rest atop

strips of cardboard and wood laid over plastic sheeting. The

label on the Cetol container warned that “WASTE SOAKED WITH CETOL

SRD MAY SPONTANEOUSLY CATCH FIRE IF IMPROPERLY DISCARDED. 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH USE, PLACE . . . WASTE IN A SEALED, WATERFILLED METAL CONTAINER.” Blay did not read this warning, but

still knew that wood preservative could spontaneously ignite.

Blay has since stated that, when he finished working that

day, he discarded latex gloves and at least one paper towel he

had used in the dipping process--and which were contaminated with

the preservative--into a plastic garbage bag. The parties

dispute whether Blay discarded only the gloves and a single paper

towel that he used to wipe his hands at the day’s end, or

additional paper towels, and whether Blay left the garbage bag in

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 3 of 31
This dispute arises from inconsistencies between a 1

statement Blay gave to the investigator for the Adamses’

insurance carrier and his deposition testimony. Neither party

has provided either of those documents to the court, however

(Myers submitted a portion of Blay’s deposition transcript, but

it deals with a different subject). 

4

the area of the basement where he had been working, or disposed

of it in a trash bin elsewhere on the property. Blay has also 1

testified that a piece of the Adamses’ furniture, a box spring,

had been left leaning up against an outlet box in the area of the

basement where he had been working. The Adamses, however,

maintain that there were no electrical outlets or wiring, or even

any electrical tools or appliances, in that area, save for an

overhead light fixture with no bulb in it.

That night, in the bedroom where the Adamses were staying,

Tracy Adams noticed a pungent smell. Later, on Paul Adams’s way

to the basement to shut off the lights for the evening, he

encountered “grayish-black” smoke coming up the basement stairs. 

As he descended he saw flames and black smoke emanating from the

corner of the basement where Blay had been working. By the time

the Littleton Fire Department had arrived, fire was venting from

all windows and doors in the rear portion of the structure. 

Despite the department’s efforts, the fire soon engulfed the

whole building, which eventually collapsed. The entire home and

nearly all of its contents were destroyed.

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 4 of 31
Ignoring this aspect of Austin’s conclusion, Myers 2

complained at oral argument that Austin failed to explain how a

fire starting in a garbage bag on the floor could have reached

the rafters overhead.

5

Within the next few days, Timothy Austin, an investigator

retained by the Adamses’ property insurer, examined the scene of

the fire and interviewed Blay and the Adamses. Austin, a

certified fire investigator, has worked in that capacity for more

than 20 years, analyzing the cause and origin of approximately

12,000 fires and testifying in a number of cases in state and

federal court. Based on his investigation of the fire at the

Adamses’ home, Austin determined that the contaminated materials

Blay placed in the garbage bag in the basement had spontaneously

ignited, with the flames quickly spreading to the cedar shakes he

left drying nearby.2

In support of this finding, Austin relied on the pungent

odor Mrs. Adams had noticed, which he considered “consistent”

with the debris in the garbage bag “heating up and off-gassing

just prior to flaming ignition,” as well as Mr. Adams’s account

that he had discovered the fire “in the exact location where Mr.

Blay was dipping cedar shake shingles earlier that day.” Austin

also ruled out all other imaginable causes of the fire, including

an electrical one (he found no sources of electricity near the

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 5 of 31
6

fire’s origin) and arson, by the Adamses or someone else (he

found no evidence of that, either).

Thus, Austin concluded, Blay had caused the fire by

disposing of materials containing the wood preservative in a

manner contrary to that specified by the warning label. Austin

did not, however, conduct his own test of the potential for the

wood preservative to spontaneously ignite, rejecting that step as

unnecessary in light of the label—-which, in his view, reflected

that the manufacturer had already conducted such tests itself.

The Adamses filed a claim with their property insurer,

OneBeacon Insurance Company, seeking more than $1 million in

losses they sustained in the fire, including nearly $440,000 in

lost personal property. Following an analysis by Dean Zwicker, a

OneBeacon employee with 25 years’ experience adjusting property

damage claims, OneBeacon paid the Adamses the maximum available

under their policy, which did not entirely cover their loss. The

Adamses then commenced this action against Myers, alleging statelaw claims of negligence and breach of contract. While OneBeacon

is not a party to this action, it enjoys a right of subrogation

to whatever they recover against Myers, up to the amount

OneBeacon paid the Adamses.

In due course, the parties jointly agreed to a scheduling

order, subsequently approved by the court, setting April 13, 2009

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 6 of 31
7

and June 12, 2009, as the dates for disclosure of the Adamses’

and Myers’s expert witnesses and their reports, respectively. On

April 13, counsel for the Adamses sent counsel for Myers a

document entitled “Rule 26(a)(2)(A) Disclosure of Expert

Witness,” which identified Zwicker as an “experienced property

claims adjuster” who was “expected to testify concerning the

property damages sustained by [the Adamses] in accordance with

his adjuster’s reports,” which had been previously provided.

The scheduling order also required challenges to expert testimony

to be made at least 45 days prior to trial, which was (and is, no

continuances having been asked or given) set for December 1,

2009. The discovery period closed on August 7, 2009. In an

attempt at a pretrial settlement, the parties also appeared

before a private mediator on July 9, 2009.

About one month prior, on June 4, 2009, counsel for Myers

wrote to counsel for the Adamses, explaining, “In anticipation of

the upcoming mediation, I have had an audit of your damage claims

performed by a forensic accountant, Glenn Ricciardelli . . . . I

do have a preliminary set of schedules from Mr. Ricciardelli’s

audit, copies of which are enclosed.” Counsel for Myers also

stated that he had “sent the Adamses’ testimony and photographs

of the ‘antiques’ to an appraiser” and that counsel “expect[ed]

that Mr. Ricciardelli will be testifying at trial as will Mr.

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 7 of 31
8

Buxton”--who, it turns out, was the appraiser in question--should

the mediation prove unsuccessful. 

One of schedules enclosed with this letter aggregates the

Adamses’ payments to the contractors who built the house and

lists a “salvage value” for certain materials which were not

consumed by the fire, arriving at a value nearly $75,000 less

than what the Adamses claimed. Another schedule represents a

“price test” comparing the vendor’s list price for 20 different

items of personal property lost in the fire--out of some 2,363

different items included in the Adamses’ insurance claim--to the

value they had claimed, arriving at a “replacement cost ratio

[of] 86.06% of the claim.” A third schedule applied this ratio,

as well as a 33.14% depreciation figure, to the Adamses’ personal

property claim, and subtracted the outstanding payments to the

contractors and the “salvage value” from the Adamses’ real

property claim. Apart from a series of seven brief footnotes at

the bottom of the third schedule, these documents do not

otherwise explain Ricciardelli’s calculations. 

The next day, Myers’s counsel sent another letter to the

Adamses’ counsel, enclosing a “report from Bruce A. Buxton,

together with a brochure describing his credentials.” In

relevant part, the brochure states that Buxton “has more than 38

years of experience conducting antiques appraisals and auctions

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 8 of 31
9

throughout the United States” which exceed $50 million in value

annually. The brochure continues:

Mr. Buxton conducts appraisals primarily for the

purposes of insurance, estates, and fair market values. 

His client list also includes museums, historical

societies and many private collections. In order to

assure the most up to date values, Mr. Buxton’s

documentation is based on his extensive personal

research library, electronic databases and a network of

experts highly qualified in their special fields of

knowledge.

Buxton’s accompanying report describes itself as his

“observations and questions based on [his] professional judgment

of 39 years and appraisals exceeding $150,000,000 per year.” The

report consists of a list of approximately 35 items lost in the

fire, each accompanied by a note questioning the character or

value of that item as reported by the Adamses. For an item

reported as “Antique chair ($800),” for example, Buxton notes,

“one in picture appears to be turn of the century, for $800 it

would need to be a Chippendale piece of the period, c.1770.” For

other items, Buxton quotes a lower price, sometimes based on

recent sales at auction but in most cases unexplained.

The Adamses did not receive any additional information on

either Ricciardelli or Buxton or their opinions in this matter

until October 30, 2009, when Myers filed its objection to the

Adamses’ motion to preclude those witnesses from testifying at

trial due to Myers’s failure to provide the expert disclosures

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 9 of 31
On September 15, 2009, counsel for Myers provided counsel 3

for the Adamses with an “updated” set of schedules from

Ricciardelli. This set added a fourth schedule purporting to

summarize the values of the claimed antiques and collectibles

included in Buxton’s report, arriving at a “price test” ratio of

44.01%. In the updated schedules, Ricciardelli applies this

reduction to the Adamses’s claimed loss of antiques and

collectibles, and the 86.06% ratio to the remainder of the

Adamses’ claimed personal property loss. 

10

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The objection attached Ricciardelli’s curriculum 3

vitae, claiming that it had been “inadvertently omitted” when his

schedules had been forwarded to Adamses’s counsel nearly five

months prior, as well as a list of cases in which Riccardelli has

provided expert testimony. As to Buxton, the objection simply

reiterated the summary of his experience that appears in his

brochure, adding that he “had not testified in the past 10 years

and neither [he nor Ricciardelli] has related publications.”

II. Analysis

As noted at the outset, each party has moved in limine to

preclude certain of the other’s expert witnesses from testifying

at trial: the Adamses seek to exclude any testimony by 

Ricciardelli or Buxton, and Myers seeks to exclude any testimony

by Austin or Zwicker. The Adamses also move to preclude any

reference to their property insurance at trial.

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 10 of 31
The Adamses also challenge Ricciardelli and Buxton on the 4

ground that the materials Myers has provided fail to establish

their qualifications or bases for their opinions so as to enable

11

As explained fully infra, the court agrees with the Adamses

that Myers failed to provide a timely expert report from either

Ricciardelli or Buxton as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and that

this failure prevents Myers from calling those witnesses at trial

under Rule 37(c)(1), because it was not substantially justified,

harmless, or deserving of some lesser sanction. But the court

rejects Myers’s similar challenge to Zwicker’s testimony, because

no Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report was required of him as a non-retained

expert. The court also rejects Myers’s challenge to Austin’s

testimony on the ground that it is not based on a reliable

methodology as required by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence. Finally, subject to potential developments at trial,

Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (or, if not, the

collateral source rule) prevents Myers from making reference to

the Adamses’ property insurance.

A. Ricciardelli and Buxton

The Adamses move to prevent Ricciardelli and Buxton from

testifying at trial because Myers failed to provide expert

reports by them within the deadlines set by the scheduling

order. Rule 26(a)(2) requires a party to “disclose the identity 4

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 11 of 31
them to testify under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

The court does not reach that argument.

12

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

Federal Rule of Evidence 702,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A), and,

“if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide

expert testimony in the case,” then the “disclosure must be

accompanied by a written report--prepared and signed by the

witness,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). These disclosures must

occur “at the time . . . the court orders,” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(2)(C), which, for Myers’s experts, was June 12, 2009.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), an expert report must

contain “(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness

will express and the basis and reasons for them, (ii) the data 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 ten years, (v) a list of

all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the

witness testified as an expert at trial or deposition, and (vi) a

statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and

testimony in the case” (formatting altered).

The materials provided to the Adamses’ counsel prior to the

mediation omitted much of this data: they failed to give

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 12 of 31
13

Ricciardelli’s or Buxton’s qualifications (apart from the brief

references to Buxton’s “38 years of experience” and his “client

list”), to list other cases in which they had testified in the

past four years, or to reveal their compensation for their work

on this case. None of this information, in fact, was provided

until Myers filed its objection to the Adamses’ motion to exclude

Buxton and Ricciardelli--more than four months after the

applicable deadline--and even that filing does not disclose what

they were paid or, in Buxton’s case, any additional detail about

his qualifications. Courts have routinely found would-be expert

reports wanting under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) for leaving out the

required information as to the witness’s qualifications,

testimony in other cases, or compensation. See, e.g., Pell v.

E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 231 F.R.D. 186, 193 (D. Del. 2005);

Rivera Pomales v. Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., 217 F.R.D. 290,

293 (D.P.R. 2003); Dunkin’ Donuts Inc. v. Patel, 174 F. Supp. 2d

202, 213 (D.N.J. 2001); Campbell v. McMillin, 83 F. Supp. 2d 761,

765 (S.D. Miss. 2000); Ruhland v. Walter Kidde Portable Equip.,

Inc., 179 F.R.D. 246, 249 (W.D. Wis. 1998).

Moreover, the materials given to the Adamses’ counsel about

Ricciardelli and Buxton by the deadline lacked the “complete

statement of all opinions the witness[es] will express and the

basis and reasons for them” and “the data or other information

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 13 of 31
14

considered by the witness[es] in forming them” as also expressly

required by Rule 26(a)(B)(2). While Ricciardelli explains

certain elements of his calculations--for example, he notes that

he obtained data on the payments to the building contractors from

invoices on file with Myers--he also leaves crucial parts of them

wholly unexplained--for example, he does not say why he chose

fewer than one percent of the items lost in the fire, nor why he

chose the particular items he did, as the basis for his “price

test” reducing the value of the Adamses’ personal property claim

by nearly 15 percent. And Buxton offers simply his “observations

and questions based on his professional judgment,” citing to

specific information, such as recent sales at auction, for only a

handful of items. For the vast majority, he just questions the

character of the item as reported by the Adamses and asserts a

lower price without explaining how he came to those conclusions.

Ricciardelli’s and Buxton’s reports, then, contain neither

the information about the witnesses required by subparts (iv),

(v), and (vi), nor the information about their opinions required

by subparts (i) and (ii), of Rule 26(a)(B)(2). See Pell, 231

F.R.D. at 193 (finding an expert report insufficient for failing

to state witness’s employment history, publications, other cases

where he had testified, or compensation, or to explain “how or

why he chose [the] numbers” underlying his economic projections).

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 14 of 31
Myers has made no substantial justification claim, either 5

in its filings or at oral argument.

15

Having failed “to identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a),”

Myers is “not allowed to use that . . . witness . . . at a trial,

unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). But “it is the obligation of the party

facing sanctions for belated disclosure to show that its failure

to comply with the Rule was either justified or harmless.” 

Wilson v. Bradlees of New Eng., Inc., 250 F.3d 10, 21 (1st Cir.

2001). Myers has not carried that burden here.5

Myers’s harmlessness argument depends largely on its view

that, prior to the mediation, it disclosed “sufficient

information regarding its experts’ opinions so that [the

Adamses’] counsel would be able to explore those opinions before

the end of discovery and the deadline for filing dispositive

motions” such that Myers “complied with the intent of the expert

disclosure rule” (internal quotation marks omitted). The short

answer to this argument is that Rule 26(a)(2)(B) itself specifies

what information makes up a “sufficient” expert report and

therefore accomplishes the rule’s “intent.”

To be sure, courts have occasionally deemed minor deviations

from the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) “harmless” under Rule

37(c)(1), such as the expert’s failure to sign the report, when

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 15 of 31
16

he later adopted it by affidavit, see, e.g., Jenkins v. Bartlett,

487 F.3d 482, 488 (7th Cir. 2007), or the absence of court names

and docket numbers from the initial list of cases in which the

expert previously testified, when that data was later provided by

supplementation, see, e.g., Zollinger v. Owens-Brockway Glass

Container, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 349, 356 (N.D.N.Y. 2002). But

the wholesale omission of one or more of the categories of

information demanded by the rule, as here, almost inevitably

leads to preclusion. See, e.g., Solid Gold Casino Hotel & Resort

of Tunica v. Miles, No. 02-2863, 2004 WL 5499007, at *3 (W.D.

Tenn. Dec. 14, 2004); Dyett v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., No. 03-

60804, 2004 WL 5320630, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2004); Rivera

Pomales, 217 F.R.D. at 293; Ass’n for Disabled Ams. v. Claypool

Holdings, LLC, No. 00-0344, 2001 WL 1112109, at *12 (S.D. Ind.

Aug. 6, 2001); Ruhland, 179 F.R.D. at 250. Myers provides no

authority to the contrary.

These cases are consistent with the guidance from the court

of appeals cautioning that Rule 37(c)(1) “requires the near

automatic exclusion of Rule 26 information that is not timely

disclosed,” Wilson, 250 F.3d at 20, and describing the

“harmlessness” exception as but a “narrow escape hatch” in the

case of noncompliance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Lohnes v. Level 3

Commc’ns, Inc., 272 F.3d 49, 60 (1st Cir. 2001). As the circuit

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 16 of 31
17

has also recognized, the expert disclosure requirements

“promote[] fairness both in the discovery process and at trial”

by “better preparing attorneys for cross-examination, minimizing

surprise, and supplying a helpful focus for the court’s

supervision of the judicial process.” Thibeault v. Square D Co.,

960 F.2d 239, 244 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(2) advisory committee’s note (1993).

These purposes are clearly frustrated by disclosures, like

Myers’s, that tell the opposing party nothing about a witness’s

qualifications, prior testimony, or compensation, and not enough

about the bases or reasons for his opinions or the data he used

in forming them. See, e.g., Rivera Pomales, 217 F.R.D. at 292-93

(explaining how failing to produce an expert’s qualifications

hamstrings an adversary’s investigation and preparation of its

case). Moreover, where, as here, these facts are not disclosed

until just one month before trial and after the discovery cutoff

has long since passed, the harm to the opposing party is

manifest. See Lohnes, 272 F.3d at 60 (finding that plaintiff’s

failure to disclose his expert until after defendant moved for

summary judgment “deprived [it] of the opportunity to depose the

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 17 of 31
While Myers is correct that, in Lohnes, the plaintiff 6

failed to disclose even the identity of his would-be expert

witness until after the close of discovery, the difference

between that case and this case is one of degree, rather than

kind. An incomplete expert disclosure is less harmful than no

expert disclosure, to be sure, but it is harmful nonetheless and,

as just noted, courts routinely prevent expert witnesses from

testifying due to incomplete disclosures, not just missing ones.

Myers also claims “prejudice” from “the informal nature of 7

the [Adamses’] disclosure of Zwicker. As explained infra at Part

II.B, however, that disclosure was not subject to the

requirements of Rule 26(a)(B)(2), because Zwicker was not

“retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in

the case” nor do his “duties as [a] party’s employee regularly

involve giving expert testimony.” At oral argument, Myers

complained that the expert report by Austin--who was specially

retained to testify in this matter and therefore is subject to

Rule 26(a)(2)(B)--was also inadequate. Because that point was

not raised until then (Myers moved to exclude Austin due to his

allegedly unacceptable methodology only, see infra Part II.C)

this court need not consider it. See Doe v. Friendfinder

Network, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 288, 304 n.19 (D.N.H. 2008). The

argument is without merit anyway, as even a cursory comparison of

Austin’s comprehensive report to the fragmentary materials

provided by Ricciardelli and Buxton makes clear. 

18

proposed expert, challenge his credentials, solicit expert

opinions of its own, or conduct expert-related discovery”).6

Myers nevertheless complains that, not only did its

inadequate expert disclosures fail to prejudice the Adamses, but

the Adamses’ “failure to object” to the disclosures prior to

moving in limine to prevent the experts from testifying actually

prejudiced Myers “by not giving [it] the opportunity to correct

any omissions.” This argument also has a short answer: the 7

jointly proposed scheduling order, approved by the court, did not

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 18 of 31
19

require either party to make its objections to expert testimony 

until 45 days before trial, so the Adamses’ “failure” to do so

sooner is of no consequence.

Indeed, exclusion of inadequately disclosed expert testimony

under Rule 37(c)(1) “is automatic in the sense that there is no

need for the opposing party to make a motion . . . to compel a

further disclosure as a predicate for imposition of the

sanction.” 8A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2289.1, at 704 (2d ed. 1994). That the Adamses

waited until the agreed-upon deadline to point out the

shortcomings of Myers’s expert disclosures, then, has no bearing

on the harmlessness analysis. Myers provides no authority for

its contrary view, which would effectively shift the

responsibility to ensure adequate expert reports from the party

seeking to call those experts to its adversary, and has been

rejected by other district courts in this circuit. See Rivera

Pomales, 217 F.R.D. at 293; Piester v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,

929 F. Supp. 595, 599 (D.R.I. 1996).

The court concludes that Myers’s failure to provide timely

expert reports by either Ricciardelli or Buxton containing the

information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) was neither

substantially justified nor harmless under Rule 37(c)(1). 

Finally, though the rule authorizes other sanctions “instead of”

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 19 of 31
At oral argument, Myers suggested that Rule 26(a)(B)(2) 8

applies to Zwicker because he is employed by OneBeacon, which is

not a party to this action. That Zwicker is not employed by a

party, however, does not mean that he was “specially retained to

present expert testimony,” which is the trigger for the expert

report requirement. Employment by a party matters only insofar

as it “regularly involve[s] giving expert testimony,” which

Zwicker’s employment does not. And, even if it did, the fact

that Zwicker works for a non-party would seem to make this second

20

excluding inadequately disclosed witnesses, that sanction, again,

is “near automatic,” and the party in violation has the burden to

show that some lesser sanction is appropriate. Wilson, 250 F.3d

at 20-21. Myers has not taken on that burden here, but in any

event none of the other sanctions specifically authorized by Rule

37(c)(1), e.g., ordering the payment of attorneys’ fees caused by

the inadequate disclosure, or informing the jury of it, is

appropriate. The Adamses’ motion to preclude Ricciardelli and

Buxton from testifying is granted.

B. Zwicker

For its part, Myers moves to prevent one of the Adamses’

expert witnesses, Zwicker, from testifying at trial because they

failed to provide an expert report from him. Rule 26(a)(2)(B),

however, demands a report only “if the witness is one retained or

specially employed to present expert testimony in the case or one

whose duties as the party’s employee regularly involve giving

expert testimony.” Zwicker, who adjusted the Adamses’ personal 8

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 20 of 31
trigger for an expert report--a witness “whose duties as the

party’s employee regularly involve giving expert testimony”--

inapplicable here, not the other way around. 

21

property claim on behalf of his employer, OneBeacon, fits neither

of those categories, so, under Rule 26(a)(B)(2)(A), no expert

report was required of him; all that was required, under Rule

26(a)(B)(2)(B), was that the Adamses “disclose to the other

parties [Zwicker’s] identity” as “a witness [they] may use at

trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.” 

The Adamses did that, by the applicable deadline, when they

provided Myers with their “Rule 26(a)(2)(A) Disclosure of Expert

Witness,” described in Part I, supra.

 As this court has observed, “‘[w]hile all experts must be

disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(A), only “retained” experts must

provide Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports.’” Aumand v. Dartmouth

Hitchcock Med. Ctr., 611 F. Supp. 2d 78, 88 (D.N.H. 2009)

(quoting Sprague v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 177 F.R.D. 78, 81

(D.N.H. 1998)); see also, e.g., 8 Wright, supra, § 2031.1, at 441

n.6 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) advisory committee’s note

(1993)) & 2009 supp. at 228-29 (“as to nonretained expert

witnesses, the obligation to identify such persons as witnesses

who will be presenting expert testimony under Rule 26(a)(2)(A)

applies although there is no corresponding report requirement”

(emphasis added; footnote omitted)). This proposition is

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 21 of 31
A question often arises as to whether percipient witnesses 9

who happen to be experts--usually a plaintiff’s treating

physicians in a case involving personal injury--are subject to

even the expert disclosure requirement of Rule 26(a)(2)(A)

because their personal knowledge of the events at issue includes

their expert opinions. See, e.g., Aumand, 611 F. Supp. 2d at 88

& n.8. But that question is not implicated here: the Adamses

admittedly plan to have Zwicker offer expert testimony and, as a

result, the disclosure requirement of Rule 26(a)(2)(A) applies. 

The report requirement of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), though, does not.

Of course, the fact that Zwicker was not required to 10

submit a report stating the bases and reasons for his conclusions

and the like does not relieve the Adamses of their burden to

elicit that information at trial in qualifying him to give expert

testimony under Rule 702.

22

apparent from the language of the rule itself and not at all

controversial. Because the Adamses complied with the only 9

expert disclosure requirement applicable to Zwicker, Myers’s

motion to exclude him on that basis is denied.10

C. Austin

Myers also moves to prevent another of the Adamses’ expert

witnesses, Austin, from appearing at trial, arguing that his

testimony does not meet one of the requirements under Rule 702 of

the Federal Rules of Evidence. That rule provides that:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand

the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness

qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,

training, or education, may testify thereto in the form

of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is

based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony

is the product of reliable principles and methods, and

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 22 of 31
While Myers does not explicitly challenge the “facts and 11

data” underlying Austin’s opinion, its motion and presentation at

oral argument raised some of the disputes noted in Part I, supra,

e.g., how much contaminated material Blay placed in the bag, and

whether Blay in fact left the bag in the basement. Austin’s

report indicates, however, that he based his findings as to

Blay’s actions on a recorded statement he gave Austin in the days

following the fire. As mentioned supra at note 1, that statement

has not been provided to the court, so it has no basis for

questioning the accuracy of Austin’s account of what Blay told

him, even if Blay did in fact give a different account in his

deposition. In any event, “[w]hen the factual underpinning of an

expert opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and

credibility of the testimony,” rather than its admissibility. 

Newell P.R., Ltd. v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 20 F.3d 15, 20 (1st Cir.

1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).

23

(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods

reliably to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. As the structure of this rule suggests,

before the factfinder in a case can consider expert testimony

over the adverse party’s objection, the trial judge, serving as

“gatekeeper,” must determine whether the testimony satisfies the

relevant foundational requirements. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993).

Here, the only foundational requirement which Myers

questions is whether Austin’s opinion--that the fire was caused

by the spontaneous ignition of material, contaminated with the

wood preservative, that Blay improperly placed in a garbage bag

in the basement--is “the product of reliable principles and

methods.” Austin explains that he conducted his investigation 11

according to the National Fire Protection Association’s Guide for

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 23 of 31
24

Fire and Explosion Investigations, known as NFPA 921. Myers does

not question that NFPA 921 represents a reliable methodology for

investigating the cause of fires, but argues that Austin strayed

from it by failing to conduct any experimental testing of his

spontaneous ignition hypothesis.

As the Adamses point out, however, NFPA 921 specifically

states--in Chapter 4.3.6--that once the investigator develops a

hypothesis, it is tested “by the principle of deductive

reasoning, in which the investigator compares his or her

hypothesis to all known facts. This testing of the hypothesis

may be either cognitive or experimental” (internal crossreference omitted; emphasis added). Consistent with this

language, courts have ruled that NFPA 921 does not, in fact,

require experimental testing of a fire investigator’s hypothesis

as to cause, and have rejected challenges to opinion testimony

based on an expert’s failure to do so. See Shuck v. CNH Am.,

LLC, 498 F.3d 868, 875 n.3 (8th Cir. 2007) (clarifying that NFPA

921 provides no “bright-line rule that expert opinions in fire

cases always must be supported by testing to be admissible”); see

also Westfield Ins. Co. v. J.C. Penney Corp., 466 F. Supp. 2d

1086, 1094 (W.D. Wis. 2006) (rejecting challenge to fire

investigator’s opinion testimony based on his failure to perform

tests). Myers provides no authority to the contrary, in the form

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 24 of 31
25

of either judicial decisions interpreting NFPA 921 or an opinion

from another expert that experimental testing is required by NFPA

921 or any other reliable methodology of fire investigation. 

Furthermore, Austin explains (in an affidavit submitted with

the Adamses’ objection to Myers’s motion to exclude him) that

testing “the potential for the Sikkens sealer/stain product to

spontaneously ignite” was unnecessary “since the manufacturer

already conducted those tests” in deciding to place a label on

the product warning of that very danger. Austin’s “failure” to

conduct experimental testing of his spontaneous ignition

hypothesis, then, did not render his methodology unreliable under

Rule 702 so as to require the exclusion of his opinion.

Myers also attacks Austin’s opinion because “he contends

that he considered and ruled out other possible sources of

ignition, including electrical ignition--for which there is as

much evidence as spontaneous combustion--without doing any

testing or even specific investigation.” As an initial matter,

though, Myers does not identify the “evidence” for electrical

ignition, apart from Blay’s claim at his deposition that a box

spring had been left lying against an outlet cover in the

basement. Assuming, dubitante, that this scenario creates any

risk of fire (Myers presents no evidence to that effect, and the

court has difficulty with the notion that a piece of furniture in

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 25 of 31
While Austin’s report did not contain this specific 12

explanation, Myers’s motion did not seek to exclude his testimony

based on deficiencies in his report, but deficiencies in his

methodology. See note 5, supra.

26

contact with an outlet box can somehow catch fire), the Adamses

dispute that the scenario existed, at least anywhere near the

fire’s origin, and Austin was certainly not obligated to accept

Blay’s account in forming his opinions, given the evidence to the

contrary. See also note 10, supra. Nor, as just explained, was

Austin required to perform tests in order to eliminate other

imaginable causes of the fire.

Moreover, Austin states in his affidavit that he ruled out

“every possible cause of the fire” aside from spontaneous

ignition of the sealant, including an electrical one, because

there were no electrical outlets, wiring, tools, appliances, or

devices in the area of the fire’s origin. That sufficiently 12

explains Austin’s conclusion so as to make it admissible at trial

under Rule 702 and Daubert. See Westfield, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 

1094 (“one of the proper ways for an expert to identify the

source of a fire is by eliminating other potential sources”).

Myers’s motion to exclude Austin’s testimony is denied.

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 26 of 31
27

D. Evidence of the Adamses’ property insurance

Finally, the Adamses move to prevent Myers “from introducing

or eliciting testimony or evidence concerning [their] insurance

coverage,” arguing that it is both irrelevant under Rule 401 and

unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence. Myers, in response, argues that the Adamses’ property

insurer “is the major party in interest” in this case by virtue

of its subrogated right to any recovery up to what it paid the

Adamses. Myers also argues that Zwicker, whom the Adamses intend

to call to testify as to the amount of their loss, valued that

loss in his capacity as an adjuster for their property insurer.

Myers’s first argument is incorrect. The property insurer,

OneBeacon, has not been named as a party to this action and, as

the Adamses point out, need not have been. Under federal law,

which controls the question of who is the real party in interest

here, “if the insured is only partially compensated by the

insurer, both the insurer and the insured are real parties-ininterest” in an action against the party allegedly responsible

for the loss and, as a result, either the insurer or the insured

(or both) may serve as the plaintiff. Brocklesby Transp. v. E.

States Escort Servs., 904 F.2d 131, 133 (2d Cir. 1990) (citing

United States v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 338 U.S. 366, 380-82

(1949)); see also, e.g., 20 Wright, supra, § 75, at 665.

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 27 of 31
28

While some (but not all) courts nevertheless allow a

defendant to compel joinder of the insurer under these

circumstances, see 20 Wright, supra, § 75, at 655 & n.14, Myers

has not moved to do so, but only mentioned this issue in its

objection to the Adamses’ motion in limine, cf. L.R. 7.1(a)(1)

(“Objections to pending motions and affirmative motions for

relief shall not be combined in one filing.”). In any event, it

would be too late, because the scheduling order set January 19,

2009 as the deadline for joinder of additional parties, and trial

is imminent. See Cabrera v. Municip. of Bayamon, 622 F.2d 4, 6

(1st Cir. 1980) (noting court’s “discretion to refuse an attempt

to join a new party at [a] late stage of the litigation”).

Myers’s second point, however, is well-taken. Under the

Federal Rules, “[e]vidence that a person was or was not insured

against liability is not admissible upon the issue of whether the

person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully,” but the rule,

by its terms, “does not require the exclusion of evidence of

insurance against liability when offered for another purpose,

such as . . . bias or prejudice of a witness.” Fed. R. Evid.

411. So the fact that OneBeacon paid the Adamses for part of

their loss--and stands to recover that payment through any award

made in this case--can be used to show the bias or prejudice of

Zwicker, who works for OneBeacon, in testifying to the amount of

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 28 of 31
The court notes that OneBeacon also hired Austin, so the 13

company’s interest in the outcome could potentially be used to

show his bias or prejudice, but Myers has not made that argument. 

It could be argued that Rule 411 does not apply, either 14

because the Adamses were insured not against “liability,” but

casualty, or because evidence of their coverage would not be used

to show they acted “negligently or otherwise wrongfully” (though

that begs the question of how that evidence would in fact be

used). But a leading evidence treatise takes the view that

evidence of insurance is inadmissible under Rule 411 even “when

used against a plaintiff, since it suggests that he or she has

already been compensated, and either that the plaintiff is

seeking a double recovery or that the real party in interest is

the subrogated insurer”--which, as just discussed, appears to be

Myers’s only reason for wanting to introduce that evidence here. 

2 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 411.03[3], at 411-9--4-11-10

(Joseph B. McLaughlin, ed., 2d ed. 1997). Even if Rule 411 did

not apply, moreover, evidence of the Adamses’ property insurance

29

that loss. See Conde v. Starlight I, Inc., 103 F.3d 210, 214

(1st Cir. 1997) (upholding references to witness as an “adjuster”

over a Rule 411 objection where his credibility was at issue due

to his employment by the defendant’s liability insurer).

Implicitly conceding this point, the Adamses say, in reply

to Myers’s objection, that they no longer intend to call Zwicker

as a witness, except in rebuttal to any testimony as to the value

of their loss given by Ricciardelli or Buxton. Given this

court’s ruling that those witnesses cannot testify, see Part

II.A, supra, Zwicker will not be testifying either, closing off

the only possible avenue Myers has identified for admitting

evidence of the Adamses’ insurance coverage at trial. That 13

evidence is inadmissible under Rule 411, and the Adamses’s 14

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 29 of 31
would still be inadmissible under New Hampshire’s collateral

source rule, for much the same reason. As this court has

recognized, evidence that a plaintiff has insurance coverage for

his complained-of injuries causes an unacceptable risk that the

jury “‘may be unduly inclined to return either a defendant’s

verdict or an artificially low damage award.’” Aumand, 611 F.

Supp. 2d at 92 (quoting Fitzgerald v. Expressway Sewerage

Constr., Inc., 177 F.3d 71, 73 (1st Cir. 1999)). 

Document no. 17. 15

Document no. 26. 16

Document no. 19. 17

Document no. 18. 18

30

motion to exclude it is granted, subject to potential

developments at trial. Cf. Fitzgerald, 177 F.3d at 73 (upholding

ruling that plaintiff opened the door to evidence of health

insurance by testifying that medical expenses occasioned by the

injury had exerted a financial strain).

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Adamses’ motions to preclude

testimony by Ricciardelli and Buxton and evidence of their 15

property insurance are GRANTED and Myers’s motions to preclude 16

testimony by Zwicker and Austin are DENIED. 17 18

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 30 of 31
31

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: December 2, 2009

cc: John P. Sherman, Esq.

William E. Gericke, Esq.

Andrew D. Dunn, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 45 Filed 12/02/09 Page 31 of 31