United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
STRIKE DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WITNESS, ANDREW J. SIEVERS (ECF
V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Charles Hall (“Plaintiff) filed this lawsuit asserting
claims of premises liability and negligence against Defendant
Ikea Property, Inc.
or “Ikea”). The matter is currently scheduled for
trial on November 14, 2016. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have
filed motions in limine in anticipation of trial, which
presently remain pending before the Court. In those motions,
Plaintiff seeks to:
. Strike Defendant's Expert Witness,
Andrew J. Sievers (ECF No. 74); and
. Strike Nonparty At Fault Claim (ECF No.
75). Defendant's motions in limine seek to:
. Exclude Testimony of DeAndre Kinney (ECF
No. 76); and
. Preclude Evidence of Plaintiff s Wage Loss
Claim (ECF No. 77). Both parties have filed briefs in
response to the opposing party's motions. (ECF Nos.
78-84.) The Court now resolves the Motion to Strike
Defendant's Expert Witness, Andrew J. Sievers. (ECF No.
filed this suit against Defendant for an injury he obtained
through the course of his employment at J.W. Logistics
(“JW”). (ECF No. 28, ¶¶ 3, 7.) This
Court issued a scheduling order on October 14, 2014,
requiring the parties to submit their lay and expert witness
lists by November 14, 2014. (ECF No. 18 at Pg ID 68.) Both
parties submitted timely lay and expert witness lists. (ECF
Nos. 21, 22.) Defendant's Witness List included liability
experts, but did not include Andrew J. Sievers
(“Sievers”) as a potential witness. (ECF No. 21
at Pg ID 78-84.)
filed a supplemental witness list on August 23, 2016 naming
Sievers as an expert witness on the issue of liability. (ECF
No. 70 at Pg ID 891-92.) On September 8, 2016, Defendant
provided Plaintiff with Sievers' expert
report. (ECF No. 83 at Pg ID 1160.)
argues that Sievers' testimony should be allowed, because
“[o]nly the identity of this expert changed, not the
subject matter of the testimony.” (ECF No. 83 at Pg ID
1159.) Plaintiff argues that this late disclosure still
violates Rule 26(a)(1) and should not be admissible. (ECF No.
74 at Pg ID 903.) Further, Plaintiff points out deficiencies
within the actual report. Plaintiff asserts that the expert
report fails to include the information required under Rule
Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (“Rule 26”) governs
disclosure of expert testimony. Under Rule 26(a)(2)(B),
parties are required to provide a written report unless
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court. Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(a)(2)(B). A party who fails to provide an expert report in
accordance with Rule 26(a) is “not allowed to use that
information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a
hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially
justified or is harmless.” Fed.R.Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
also governs the timeliness of disclosures by experts. Rule
26(2)(D) states that a party must make expert testimony
disclosures “at least 90 days before the date set for
trial or for the case to be ready for trial” or within
30 days after another party's disclosure if the expert
witness testimony is intended to contract or rebut evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(2)(D). District courts have broad discretion
to exclude untimely disclosed expert-witness testimony.
Matilla v. S. Kentucky ...