United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Gerrard United States District Judge
plaintiffs in this case, Nelle and John Paul Jamison, have
filed a motion in limine (filing 83) seeking to preclude the
defendant, Depositors Insurance Company, from offering expert
testimony at trial. Depositors has responded with its own
motion in limine (filing 89). For the reasons that follow,
the Jamisons' motion will be granted and Depositors'
motion denied. Additionally, Depositors has filed a motion
for leave to amend its answer to assert a new counterclaim
for reformation (filing 145). That motion will also be
JAMISONS' MOTION IN LIMINE
Jamisons move the Court to exclude, at trial, any expert
testimony from Depositors based, in part, on Depositors'
failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2). The Jamisons contend that the parties
agreed Depositors' expert disclosures would be provided
by April 15, 2015,  and that as of May 14, when the
Jamisons' motion was filed, they had not received such
disclosures. Depositors' sole argument in response is
that they had effectively disclosed their experts, in their
answers to interrogatories that had been served on July 3,
2014. Filing 117 at 4-5. But those interrogatory responses
are clearly insufficient to satisfy Rule 26(a)(2).
26(a)(2) sets forth different requirements for witnesses who
are "retained or specially employed to provide expert
testimony in the case" or "whose duties as the
party's employee regularly involve giving expert
testimony, " and witnesses who do not meet those
criteria. The Court will begin with the retained experts.
to Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the disclosure of a retained expert must
be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the
witness, that contains
(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will
express and the basis and reasons for them;
(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support
(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of
all publications authored in the previous 10 years;
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4
years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study
and testimony in the case.
contends that the following interrogatory colloquy sufficed
to meet the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B):
NO. 2: State the name and address of each
person whom You expect to call as an expert witness in this
case. As to each such person, state:
a. The subject matter on which the expert is expected to
b. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the
expert expects to testify;
c. A summary of the grounds for each opinion; and
d. The qualifications for each expert.
Defendant expects to call Bruce Boehm Carlson or other
representative of Vieau Associates, Inc. In answer to
subparts a-d, please see documents identified with bates
#Jamison00023-00025 and Jamison00268-00271.
117 at 4-5 (citing filing 84-1 at 4). The documents referred
to are also in the ...