Opinion ID: 2831676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Designation of Experts

Text: ¶9. Under Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 4.04, absent special circumstances, expert witnesses must be designated by all attorneys of record at least sixty days before trial. On November 12, 2012, Brown propounded discovery requests, asking for the designation of expert witnesses whom the MBN intended to call at trial. The MBN answered on 7 December 12, 2012, and stated that no expert witnesses were expected at that time. The MBN designated Agents Heather Sullivan and Keith McMahan as fact witnesses on January 2, 2013. It was not until January 22, 2013, thirteen days before trial, that the MBN designated Agents Sullivan and McMahan as expert witnesses. ¶10. Before trial began, Brown objected to any expert testimony. The MBN argued that special circumstances existed for the untimely designations, because both Agents McMahan and Sullivan were identified as fact witnesses and because their testimony was identified in responses to discovery. The trial court agreed and allowed both experts to testify. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and reasoned that Brown was not a victim of unfair surprise or trial by ambush, because both Agent Sullivan and McMahan were identified as fact witnesses. ¶11. Rule 4.04 is clear that experts must be designated at least sixty days before trial unless special circumstances exist. “It is error for an expert witness to testify when he was not properly designated as an expert, and the opposing side had asked for this information in discovery.” Mississippi Dep’t of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks v. Brannon, 943 So. 2d 53, 61 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (citing City of Jackson v. Perry, 764 So. 2d 373, 384 (Miss. 2000). See also Banks v. Hill, 978 So. 2d 663 (Miss. 2008) (stating concerns that a plaintiff would not designate experts if she were allowed to argue successfully that experts were not designated because experts were not expected to be called); Bowie v. Monfort Jones Mem’l Hosp., 861 So. 2d 1037 (Miss. 2003) (“[L]itigants must understand that there is an obligation to timely comply with the orders of our trial courts.”). 8 ¶12. In Johnson, the plaintiff argued that special circumstances existed for his untimely designation of an expert, because the date that the trial was set left a two-week period before Rule 4.04 required disclosure. Johnson v. Lee, 17 So. 3d 1140, 1143 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge’s holding that a two-week period to designate experts did not establish special circumstances. Id. Similarly, in Deiorio, expert testimony was excluded when the plaintiff claimed that Christmas and other concerns were the reasons expert witnesses were untimely designated forty-two days before trial instead of sixty. Estate of Deiorio ex rel. Deiorio v. Pensacola Health Trust, Inc., 990 So. 2d 804, 806 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). On the other hand, special circumstances for the late designation of experts were found in Brennan, where the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice did not come into effect until nineteen months after the suit was filed, the defendant did not request the identity of expert witnesses in pretrial discovery, and the defendant did not claim unfair surprise. Brennan v. Webb, 729 So. 2d 244 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). ¶13. In this case, the MBN failed to show special circumstances for the untimely designation of Agents McMahan and Sullivan. The MBN was fully aware of the requirements of Rule 4.04 and knew that the expert testimony of at least Agent McMahan was required to establish the content of the plastic bags found, yet it still failed to identify him as an expert. The MBN argues that special circumstances were present because the defense was not unduly surprised. Yet, even after designating expert witnesses less than two weeks before trial, the MBN never produced the resume of either expert witness to assist Brown in voir dire. Therefore, it was error to allow Agents McMahan and Sullivan to testify 9 as experts, because the MBN did not timely disclose Agents McMahan and Sullivan as expert witnesses under Rule 4.04A and because the MBN failed to show special circumstances existed for the untimely designations. Although it was error to allow Agents McMahan and Sullivan to testify as experts, because Brown failed to establish an ownership interest in the seized currency, we find that this was harmless error. ¶14. The Court of Appeals additionally found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the expert testimony because Brown failed to request a continuance and therefore waived the issue. We find that Brown was not required to request a continuance under Rule 4.04A. Brown properly objected to the untimely disclosure of Agents McMahan and Sullivan as expert witnesses, and failure to request a continuance did not result in waiver of the issue.