Opinion ID: 2791152
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Strike Cole Affidavit

Text: ¶10. A trial court’s grant of a motion to strike an affidavit is subject to an abuse-of- 4 The City argued that East Beach had been used by the public for more than ten years; therefore, the public held a prescriptive easement to continue using the beach. The chancellor found that the public could continue using the beach only upon the permission of Gunn and Harris. 5 discretion standard of review. Trustmark Nat’l Bank v. Meador, 81 So. 3d 1112, 1116 (Miss. 2012) (citing Schmidt v. Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, 18 So. 3d 814, 832 (Miss. 2009)). ¶11. The State filed Dr. George Cole’s affidavit in response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on July 24, 2012, the day before the hearing. Dr. Cole’s affidavit stated that he had examined evidence relating to the shoreline on East Beach. In Dr. Cole’s opinion, before the seawall was constructed, the shoreline was inland of the seawall’s location, and following the construction of the seawall and public renourishment of the beach, the shoreline has been seaward of the seawall. Dr. Cole came to this conclusion using several surveys to locate the shorelines in 1822 and in 2012, and comparing the shorelines to the location of the existing seawall. Attached to the affidavit, Dr. Cole included an aerial photograph printed from the program “Google Earth” with marked lines that represented the opinions Dr. Cole stated in the affidavit. ¶12. Gunn and Harris objected to the affidavit, arguing that the affidavit was untimely under Rule 56(c) and that the affidavit included opinions outside of the opinions identified in the State’s Designation of Expert Witnesses, in violation of Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The trial court directed the parties to file briefs on whether or not Dr. Cole’s affidavit should be excluded. The chancellor stated, “[t]he objection, as I understand it from Mr. Corlew is violation of the discovery aspect in your disclosure designation of experts you had to set out the opinions that you were going to use him for.” ¶13. Under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 26, a party may use interrogatories to 6 require another party to identify expert witnesses expected to testify at trial, the subject matter the expert will testify on, the substance of the facts and opinions, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. M.R.C.P. 26(b)(4). The December scheduling order did not require the designation of experts to be made pursuant to Rule 26. The order merely stated that the defendants must designate experts on or before February 2, 2012, and that discovery ended March 15, 2012. A discovery request must first be made before a violation of a discovery request can occur. City of Jackson v. Perry, 764 So. 2d 373, 384 (Miss. 2000). Rule 26(b)(4) clearly states that expert facts and opinions can be required through interrogatories. It is undisputed that Gunn and Harris did not propound interrogatories. Because no interrogatories were propounded imposing a duty to supplement expert opinions, the motion to strike Dr. Cole’s affidavit for a discovery violation had no basis. ¶14. The trial court instead excluded Dr. Cole’s affidavit because the chancellor found the affidavit was unreliable and not admissible under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56. However, the chancellor did not instruct the parties to brief this issue. The chancellor instructed the parties to brief whether Dr. Cole’s affidavit was a violation of discovery under Rule 26. “[W]hen an expert’s opinion is challenged, the party sponsoring the expert’s challenged opinion must be given fair opportunity to respond to the challenge. The provision of a fair opportunity to respond is part of the trial court’s gate[-]keeping responsibility.” Sanders v. Wiseman, 29 So. 3d 138, 143 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Kihullen v. Kansas City Southern Ry., 8 So. 3d 168, 174 (Miss. 2009) (citations omitted)). The chancellor did not give the State a fair opportunity to respond to the challenge under Rule 56. Thus, the trial 7 court abused its discretion in granting the motion to strike Dr. Cole’s affidavit. If this issue arises on remand, the court should allow the State an opportunity to respond prior to ruling on the motion to strike.