Esplanade 2018 Partners, LLC v. Mt Hawley Insurance Company
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-03592
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Esplanade 2018 Partners v. Mt Hawley, Judge Ho granted in part and denied in part, excluding Fagala’s testimony but denying contempt and fees.
Esplanade 2018 Partners, LLC and Mt Hawley Insurance Company; the ruling determines whether Mt Hawley may use Travis Fagala’s testimony or opinions and whether related independent estimates may remain in evidence.
What happened
In Esplanade 2018 Partners, LLC v. Mt Hawley Insurance Company, the dispute involved an insurance claim for hurricane damage to a Louisiana property. The plaintiff asked the court to address the defendant’s failure to produce its expert, Travis Fagala, for a deposition during discovery.
The plaintiff asked the court to hold the defendant in contempt, prevent Fagala from testifying or offering opinions, award attorney’s fees and costs, and reopen discovery for Fagala’s deposition as an alternative. The defendant said it had tried unsuccessfully to contact Fagala after he left J.S. Held and agreed that he should not testify, but opposed excluding other estimates that did not rely on Fagala’s work.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion. He denied contempt and attorney’s fees and costs, but granted the requests to exclude Fagala’s expert testimony, his opinions, and his testimony as a fact witness. Estimates independent of and not incorporating Fagala’s estimates were not excluded.
The detailed version
- Esplanade 2018 Partners, LLC v. Mt Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:23-cv-03592
- Ho
- Sept. 10, 2025
Background
Esplanade 2018 Partners, LLC sued Mt Hawley Insurance Company concerning an insurance policy for a property in Metairie, Louisiana. The policy covered the period from April 11, 2021, to April 11, 2022. Hurricane Ida damaged the property on or about August 29, 2021, and Esplanade notified Mt Hawley of its losses on or about September 10, 2021.
Mt Hawley retained consultants to inspect the property and assess the cause and extent of the damage. Travis Fagala prepared an estimate of repair costs for covered roof and interior damage. Jim Borders prepared an estimate concerning covered damage to the exterior glazing system, and Wade Sticht was asked to determine the cause of the damage. Mt Hawley concluded that damage covered by the policy did not exceed the deductible.
Mt Hawley timely identified Fagala, Borders, and Sticht as experts. It produced Borders and Sticht for depositions but did not produce Fagala, even after the Court extended the discovery deadline to accommodate his deposition. Mt Hawley stated that it tried to contact Fagala after a July 17, 2024 order but learned that he had left J.S. Held and was unable to reach him.
Requests and Response
Esplanade asked the Court to hold Mt Hawley in contempt for failing to comply with the July 17, 2024 order; exclude Fagala’s expert testimony; exclude all evidence of Fagala’s opinions and prevent him from testifying as a fact witness; award attorney’s fees and costs; and provide other appropriate relief. In the alternative, Esplanade asked to reopen discovery to take Fagala’s deposition.
Mt Hawley agreed that Fagala should not be permitted to testify at trial. It opposed excluding other J.S. Held estimates to the extent they were independent of, and did not incorporate, Fagala’s estimates.
Rulings
The Court granted in part and denied in part Esplanade’s motion.
1. The request to hold Mt Hawley in contempt was denied. The Court found that Mt Hawley did not appear to have willfully violated the July 17, 2024 order and appeared to have diligently tried to contact Fagala.
2. The request to exclude Fagala’s expert testimony at trial was granted.
3. The request to exclude all evidence of Fagala’s opinions and prevent him from testifying at trial as a fact witness was granted. Estimates independent of and not incorporating Fagala’s estimates were not excluded.
4. The request for attorney’s fees and costs was denied because Esplanade had not shown that it was entitled to those fees and costs in this dispute.
The Court also stated that reopening discovery to depose Fagala appeared futile because Mt Hawley could not contact him. The Clerk was asked to terminate ECF No. 89.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.