Rosa v. The Charitable Trucking Co.

Background

The defendants sent a letter asking the court to prevent Andy Rosa from using an accident-reconstruction expert because the expert had not been disclosed during the discovery period. In the alternative, the defendants asked the court to extend the expert-discovery deadline so they could question Rosa's newly designated expert. Rosa argued that the factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) weighed against preventing use of the expert.

Court's Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 generally requires a party to disclose the identity of any witness it may use at trial and, for a retained expert, to provide a written report. Rule 37(c)(1) generally prevents a party from using information or a witness that was not properly disclosed unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. Courts consider the reason for the late disclosure, the importance of the testimony, the harm to the opposing party, and whether a continuance could address that harm.

The court concluded that the defendants had identified no harm beyond the need to question the expert. The court also relied on the fact that the action was about two months from trial, there was no evidence of bad faith, and the defendants agreed that questioning the expert would cure any prejudice.

Ruling

The court DENIED the defendants' request to prevent Rosa from using the accident-reconstruction expert. It GRANTED the request for a limited extension of expert discovery so the defendants could question the expert. The expert-discovery deadline was extended to May 3, 2024. Because trial was scheduled for June, the court stated that it was unlikely to grant any further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.