Mangiaracina v. BNSF Railway Company

Background

Plaintiffs Joel Mangiaracina and Ranee Chaloeicheep filed an ex parte motion seeking permission to introduce supplemental expert reports and related testimony. The reports came from medical, vocational rehabilitation, and economist experts. The court’s amended scheduling order required expert disclosures by June 8, 2018, and the parties agreed to exchange expert files on October 25, 2021.

Dr. Barchuk reexamined Mangiaracina on September 30, 2021. According to the plaintiffs, Dr. Barchuk then changed his opinion to state that Mangiaracina had a shortened work-life expectancy. The plaintiffs asked their vocational rehabilitation and economist experts to update their reports. They produced supplemental reports from Dr. Barchuk and life-care planner Carol Hyland on October 21, 2021, and an amended report from economist James Mills on October 29, 2021.

Taken together, the reports stated that Mangiaracina’s work life was limited to three to five more years rather than continuing until normal retirement age. They also increased the claimed special damages from $3,123,680 to $4,879,922. Jury selection was scheduled for November 8, 2021, five days after the order.

Parties’ Positions

The plaintiffs argued that the disclosures were substantially justified because the experts needed time to account for the September examination. They also argued that BNSF would not be prejudiced because the parties had agreed to proceed without expert depositions and BNSF could provide the reports to its own experts for rebuttal or response.

BNSF asked the court to deny the motion and strike the late reports. Alternatively, BNSF asked the court to continue the trial so it could reexamine Mangiaracina, take additional depositions, and allow its experts to reassess the new information and opinions.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires expert reports to be disclosed at the time and in the sequence ordered by the court. Rule 37(c)(1) generally bars a party from using information or a witness at a motion, hearing, or trial when the party failed to make a required disclosure, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The party facing the sanction bears the burden of showing substantial justification or harmlessness.

The court found that Mangiaracina had not shown substantial justification for the delay. Even assuming that the experts needed to update their reports because of the passage of time, the plaintiffs did not explain why the work could not have been completed substantially earlier. The court also found that the delay was not harmless because the pretrial conference had been completed and trial was only days away, leaving BNSF insufficient time to respond to the new evidence and prepare rebuttal reports.

The court declined to continue the trial as an alternative sanction. It had already ruled on motions in limine, made other pretrial rulings, and prepared a prospective-juror questionnaire. The case had also been pending since 2016 and had been continued several times.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. It excluded the expert reports at issue and expert testimony based on those reports. The court did not continue the trial.