Henley v. Safeco Insurance Company of America
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-04243
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Henley v. Safeco, Judge Seeborg denied reconsideration, leaving expert Butch Waldron precluded after untimely disclosure and inadequate preparation.
The ruling affects Joe Henley, as personal representative of the Estate of Eva Jo Henley, by leaving Butch Waldron precluded from testifying, and Safeco Insurance Company of America, which opposed reconsideration.
What happened
In Henley v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, the court had previously barred plaintiff’s expert, Butch Waldron, from testifying because plaintiff did not provide the required expert report.
Plaintiff asked the court to impose a less severe consequence, arguing that the case depended on Waldron’s testimony, counsel was unfamiliar with the disclosure rule, and Safeco would have time to prepare. The court found that plaintiff had notice of Safeco’s request, had extra time to respond, and still did not provide the required materials. It also noted that Waldron did not inspect the property until nearly a year after discovery ended.
Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that barring Waldron’s testimony remained appropriate because of plaintiff’s lack of diligence and the potential unfairness to Safeco.
The detailed version
- Henley v. Safeco Insurance Company of America · No. 3:21-cv-04243
- Richard Seeborg
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
On January 18, 2023, the court granted Safeco Insurance Company of America’s motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert, Butch Waldron, from testifying at trial. The earlier order relied on plaintiff’s failure to provide an expert report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Under Rule 37, preclusion is an automatic sanction for that failure in the circumstances described by the court. The court later allowed plaintiff to seek reconsideration.
Arguments
Plaintiff argued that a less severe sanction than complete preclusion was warranted because the case depended on Waldron’s testimony. Plaintiff also stated that counsel did not know about the expert-report requirement or Safeco’s motion to preclude the testimony. Plaintiff argued that Safeco would not be harmed because the trial was still months away, allowing time to depose Waldron and review his report.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected those arguments. It found that counsel’s lack of familiarity with the disclosure requirement showed a lack of diligence. The court also found that plaintiff had several opportunities to correct the problem. Safeco had identified its intent to seek preclusion in an August 24, 2022 joint case-management statement signed by plaintiff’s counsel, filed its motion on November 30, 2022, and plaintiff received nearly a month of additional time to respond but did not do so.
The court further relied on Waldron’s declaration, which showed that he did not inspect the property until March 29, 2023. The court distinguished this from a case involving a report that was prepared on time but disclosed late. Here, Waldron had not conducted his analysis until nearly a year after discovery ended, and plaintiff did not explain the delay. The court noted that allowing the testimony could have unfairly given Safeco an expert witness prepared after the discovery period.
Disposition
The court held that precluding Waldron’s testimony, although a severe penalty, remained appropriate. Judge Richard Seeborg denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The order also admonished Safeco to follow the court’s page-limit instructions in future filings.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.