Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

Background

The court considered letters from the parties about whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C) applied to the defendants. The court treated the defendants’ letter as a motion for clarification and the plaintiffs’ letter as their response. The issue concerned testimony by the defendant doctors and the disclosures required before trial.

Rule 26(a)(2)(C)

The court explained that a treating physician may testify about opinions formed during consultation, examination, and treatment without complying with the disclosure requirements for a retained expert. But if the physician will testify as an expert about matters beyond the patient’s treatment, including matters based on information from outside sources, the physician must provide a disclosure under Rule 26(a)(2)(C). That disclosure must include a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the defendants had to provide Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures because some of the proposed testimony appeared to be based on knowledge acquired from outside sources. The court cited the defendants’ statements that the doctors would rely partly on specialized medical knowledge concerning medicine in correctional settings and on their knowledge of the risks and benefits of medications with abuse potential.

The court separately found that the defendants’ initial disclosure for Dr. Bozer was inadequate. Although the disclosure described her credentials and the general process for reviewing medication requests, it provided little detail about the subject matter of her opinions or the facts supporting them. It stated that she would discuss specific decisions to approve or deny medication requests and would opine that the medication policy was reasonable and necessary to meet community medical-care standards. The court found those descriptions too general to give the plaintiffs fair notice of the basis and scope of her expected testimony.

Ruling

Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the defendants’ motion for clarification. The court ordered each defendant doctor to provide disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(C). It also ordered the parties to confer and propose an order specifying the extent of the required disclosures by November 5, 2020, and directed counsel to appear by telephone for a conference on November 6, 2020.