Binns-Harty-Bolt v. McDonough

Background

Rinella Binns-Harty-Bolt, proceeding without a lawyer, brought employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Denis R. McDonough, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in his official capacity. The opinion states that two claims remained: a retaliation claim based on the termination of her employment in 2017 while her 2015 Equal Employment Opportunity complaint was pending, and a race-and-age discrimination claim based on the Veterans Affairs Department’s failure to select her for a Social Worker position in 2015. Her hostile-work-environment claim had previously been dismissed for failure to state a claim.

At a July 31, 2024 conference, Binns-Harty-Bolt said she might call medical doctors to testify about the nature and effects of injuries she suffered in 2009. The magistrate judge did not initially set an expert-discovery schedule because Binns-Harty-Bolt could not explain how that testimony related to her remaining claims, which arose from events in 2015 through 2017. The judge instead required her to identify proposed experts and the subjects of their testimony by October 15, 2024.

Binns-Harty-Bolt later told defense counsel that she would call an expert about her medical conditions and physical and emotional diagnoses, as well as medical specialists who had treated her. She did not provide further details or respond to defense counsel’s request for clarification. The defendant then asked the court to preclude, or bar, all expert testimony.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that expert evidence must be relevant to a party’s claims or defenses. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make an important fact more or less likely. Because Binns-Harty-Bolt’s disclosure was vague, the court could not determine whether any proposed expert testimony would be relevant.

The court nevertheless declined to bar all expert testimony at that stage. It stated that Binns-Harty-Bolt might be able to present admissible medical testimony about emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, or humiliation allegedly caused by the failure to promote her or the termination of her employment. The court also explained that treating physicians and other non-retained witnesses may testify about opinions formed during treatment without providing the type of full expert report required from a witness retained specifically to testify, but required disclosures and medical records may still be necessary.

Ruling and Schedule

Judge Barbara Moses denied without prejudice the defendant’s letter-application to preclude expert testimony, allowing the defendant to renew the request under the schedule set by the court. The plaintiff had to disclose her expert evidence and the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) through (C) by December 16, 2024. The defendant’s rebuttal expert evidence was due January 13, 2025; expert discovery had to be completed by January 27, 2025; and any motions to exclude expert evidence were due February 10, 2025, unless filed earlier. The court left the other case-management deadlines in effect.