Opinion ID: 1924529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance or other relief due to the delay of disclosure of testimony by expert witnesses.

Text: ¶ 13. Hailey first designated experts in August of 1997. About 90 days before trial, Hailey supplemented this response as it related to reconstruction expert Richard Turner (Turner). Although, CMF had properly requested all documents and/or other tangible items that Hailey's experts were expected to rely upon, no additional information was provided supporting Turner's claims until his deposition was taken on April 8, 1998, three weeks before trial. During his deposition, Richard Turner testified that he reached his opinion regarding Hailey's speed based upon computer data compilations of test crash data, data compilations of specific measurements of different types of vehicles, the amount of crush as measured from photographs of the vehicle after the crash and a computer program which calculates speed from a combination of these data. None of this information was revealed to CMF prior to the deposition. ¶ 14. The burden is on the party sponsoring the expert witness to fully and completely supply responses to interrogatories and requests for production of data when it concerns experts. T.K. Stanley, Inc. v. Cason, 614 So.2d 942, 950 (Miss. 1992): Miss. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i) requires that, upon request from the opposing party, a party must disclose not only the name of his expert witnesses, but he must also state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, ... the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. ¶ 15. On April 20, 1998, CMF filed its motion for a continuance or in the alternative, to strike the testimony of Turner, or in the alternative, to allow CMF to designate an additional expert. The trial court concluded that Hailey had fully complied with discovery by giving the expert's name, opinion and bases for the opinion. The court denied the motion to strike and the continuance. ¶ 16. The trial court erred in its determination that Hailey had properly complied with discovery. The request for production of documents was clear and was well within the range of discoverable material. Square D. Co. v. Edwards, 419 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Miss.1982). As Turner's opinion was based in part upon computer data compilations concerning test crashes, as well as data compilations concerning the specific measurements of the vehicle in question, that data should have been disclosed. ¶ 17. The question now is whether such disclosure was seasonable and, if not, whether the failure to make such disclosure is reversible error under the circumstances of this case. In determining whether the disclosure is seasonable, the paramount consideration is whether it was disclosed in time for the responding party to adequately examine, challenge and defend against the information. Motorola Comm. & Elecs., Inc. v. Wilkerson, 555 So.2d 713, 718 (Miss.1989); Jones v. Hatchett, 504 So.2d 198, 201 (Miss.1987) (stating purpose of our civil discovery procedures is to prevent trial by ambush). In this case, the data compilation was delivered to CMF on the date of the hearing six days before trial. However, CMF's accident reconstructionist testified on cross-examination that he was familiar with the type of computer data compilations and programs used by Hailey's expert and had used similar tools himself. He disputed the use of crash test data in this case based upon the fact that test crashes are done with stationary barriers while in this case the barrier, the tractor-trailer, was moving. ¶ 18. While CMF preserved the issue of the failure to grant a continuance by citing it as grounds for a new trial, it did not present the court with any new information as to what it would have done differently had a continuance been granted. It appears from the record that its expert was adequately prepared to deal with the data in question. Moreover, the data related only to the speed of Hailey's car. CMF's expert opined that it was at least 50 miles per hour, and Hailey's expert opined that it was no more than 35, or perhaps 38, miles per hour. CMF sought to demonstrate that either speed might be excessive under the visibility circumstances. On this conflicting evidence, the jury found Hailey negligent. ¶ 19. Under the circumstances we do not find an abuse of discretion in failing to grant a continuance or other relief due to the delay in disclosing the use of the computer data compilations here at issue. Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Gandy, 750 So.2d 527, 532 (Miss.1999) (trial court did not err in failing to grant a motion for a continuance because of a delay in expert witness disclosures). See also Robert v. Colson, 729 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Miss.1999) (trial courts have considerable discretion in discovery matters and decisions will not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion).