United States District Court, W.D. Washington Seattle.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE
SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Strike the Supplemental Expert Disclosure of Charles A.
Longley. Dkt. #38. Defendant argues that Mr. Longley was not
properly disclosed as an expert witness, and therefore his
untimely supplemental report adding numerous new expert
opinions is also improper. Id. Plaintiff responds
that Mr. Longley was properly disclosed as a fact witness,
and that it then properly supplemented Mr. Longley's
report upon request by Defendant. Dkt. #40.
deadline for disclosing expert witness reports in this matter
was January 19, 2018. Dkt. #34. On that date, Plaintiff
served its “expert witness disclosures” on
Defendant. With respect to Mr. Longley, Plaintiff provided:
Mr. Longley is anticipated to provide testimony concerning
the nonfunctionality of the Aircraft gear warning horn in
July 2016. In particular, Mr. Longley is anticipated to
testify at trial that following the gear-up landing of the
Aircraft on or about July 5, 2016, he personally inspected
the Aircraft squat switches, landing gear retraction, and
gear warning horn. Mr. Longley's inspection revealed that
the gear warning horn was inoperative. Furthermore, Mr.
Longley was a witness to the July 3, 2015 gear up landing,
and is expected to testify regarding the congestion on the
air-to-air frequency at Arlington Municipal Airport on July
3, 2015 and the density of ground traffic on the surface at
the field and air traffic in the traffic pattern and greater
vicinity at the time of the gear-up landing of the Aircraft.
Finally, Mr. Longley is anticipated to testify regarding
performance of annual inspections, use of checklists in
connection therewith, logbook entries pertaining to
performance of maintenance, the purpose of a gear warning
horn, and his expert knowledge of repair and replacement of
aircraft parts, systems, and components, together with
related logbook entries and costs.
Dkt. #38 at 2. After receiving correspondence from Defendant
regarding its perceived deficiencies with the disclosure,
Plaintiff acknowledged that Mr. Longley's opinions were
not provided as an expert, but rather as a fact witness. Dkt.
#39, Ex. 2 at 1-2. Plaintiff also stated that it would
provide a supplement as to topics that were outside of the
scope of Mr. Longley's initial retention by Plaintiff.
Id. On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff served a
supplemental expert report on Defendant. In that report, Mr.
Longley provided numerous opinions outside the scope of the
original disclosure. See Dkt. #38 at 4. The instant
Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires:
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this
disclosure must be accompanied by a written report - prepared
and signed by the witness - if the witness is one retained or
specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or
one whose duties as the party's employee regularly
involve giving expert testimony. The report must contain:
(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.
(C) Witnesses Who Do Not Provide a Written Report.
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, if the
witness is not required to provide a written ...