Nkansah v. United States of America

Background

Felix Nkansah brought claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He alleged that he was unlawfully restrained and detained, assaulted, subjected to intentional and negligent emotional distress, and subjected to civil-rights violations and deliberate medical indifference by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel and doctors. He also alleged that physical and psychological injuries left him unable to work as he had before, including claimed lost earnings.

The court had set an expert-discovery schedule. After one earlier extension, the deadline for completing expert discovery was February 24, 2023. Nkansah had served expert reports from psychiatrist Carlos Figarola, M.D., and psychologist Richard Lucas, Ph.D. He later asked to extend the deadline to April 28, 2023, because scheduling conflicts and the experts’ unavailability prevented their depositions from occurring earlier. He also sought permission to disclose economist Edmund H. Mantell, Ph.D., after the expert-disclosure deadline. Nkansah said reviewing the psychiatrist’s and psychologist’s reports showed the effect of his psychological injuries on his future ability to work.

The parties’ positions

The Government opposed permission to retain Dr. Mantell. It argued that Nkansah had not reasonably explained the delay and that adding an economist would be prejudicial and would delay the case. The Government also pointed to other late expert-related disclosures, including a later report and addendum from Dr. Figarola and treatment notes from Dr. Lucas. The Government did not oppose a reasonable extension for completing the other expert discovery.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the requirement that a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. Good cause depends primarily on the moving party’s diligence, but courts also consider the explanation for the delay, the importance and relevance of the proposed testimony, the opportunity for discovery, prejudice to the opposing party, and how soon trial will occur.

The court found the good-cause question close. It concluded that Nkansah’s explanation for waiting to identify Dr. Mantell weighed against changing the schedule because Nkansah had claimed for years that his injuries affected his ability to work. The other factors favored modification. Although the court could not determine the precise opinions Dr. Mantell would offer, it found the proposed testimony potentially relevant because the case included lost-earnings damages. The court also noted that expert discovery remained open, no trial date had been set, and any prejudice could be reduced by giving the Government time to depose Dr. Mantell and retain a rebuttal expert if needed. The court stated that its relevance conclusion did not prevent the Government from later seeking to exclude the expert testimony.

Order

The court GRANTED Nkansah’s request. It ordered:

The order concerns discovery scheduling and does not decide the underlying Federal Tort Claims Act allegations.