Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jamison v. Depositors Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

July 5, 2016

NELLE JAMISON and JOHN PAUL JAMISON, Plaintiffs
v.
DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          John M. Gerrard United States District Judge

         The 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 denied.

         THE JAMISONS' MOTION IN LIMINE

         The 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, [1] 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).

         Rule 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.

         Retained Experts

         Pursuant 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 them;
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
(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 deposition; and
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.

         Depositors contends that the following interrogatory colloquy sufficed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B):

         INTERROGATORY 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 testify;
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.

         ANSWER: 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.

         Filing 117 at 4-5 (citing filing 84-1 at 4). The documents referred to are also in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.