United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
The Estate of Michaelangelo A. Jackson, deceased, et al., Plaintiffs,
Richard Billingslea, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT [ECF NO. 26]
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, Judge
the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendants'
expert, Dr. Jerome Eck (“Eck”). For the reasons
explained, the Court DENIES the motion to
case involves claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § § 1983
and 1988 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution for municipal liability, failure
to train and supervise police officers, excessive force,
state-created danger, and failure to intervene.
allege Defendants caused death and injury; their decedents
were struck by a car being chased by the Detroit Police.
February 12, 2019, the Court held an unsuccessful settlement
conference. The parties and counsel discussed the need for
expert discovery. The Court set these deadlines: (1)
Defendants to file an expert report of Eck by February 20,
2019; (2) Plaintiffs to disclose their expert and file expert
report by March 26, 2019; and (3) expert depositions
completed by May 1, 2019.
Court held a telephone conference to discuss discovery issues
and ordered Eck to produce IRS 1099 forms issued to him, his
company, and any company he rendered an expert opinion for in
the last five years. Eck filed a Motion for Protective Order
and Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration and
Protective Order. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike
TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT AND RESPONSE
seek to strike Eck as a sanction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b).
Plaintiffs argue Eck refused to comply with the Court's
order and delayed answering Plaintiffs' expert discovery
requests. Defendants argue Plaintiffs request a “death
penalty” sanction: a “litigation-ending
sanction.” The Law Funder, LLC v. Munoz, 924
F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir. 2019).
RULE 37 SANCTION TO STRIKE ECK AS AN EXPERT IS TOO
Civ. P. 37(b) allows courts to impose sanctions on parties
for failing to comply with a court discovery order. The Sixth
Circuit considers four factors before imposing Rule 37
(1) Whether the party's failure to cooperate in discovery
is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the
adversary was prejudiced by the party's failure to
cooperate in discovery; (3) whether the party was warned that
failure to cooperate could lead to a sanction; and (4)