Opinion
8:21-cv-2073-WFJ-AAS
03-09-2023
LISA P SHULZ and KALLI PATIDES, Plaintiffs, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER
WILLIAM F. JUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant Geovera Specialty Insurance Company's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Lisa P. Shulz and Kalli Patides' expert witness (Dkt. 35). Plaintiffs have not responded, rendering Defendant's Motion unopposed. Local Rule 3.01(c). Upon close consideration, the Court grants Defendant's unopposed Motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) “governs disclosures of expert witnesses.” Bingham v. Baycare Health Sys., No. 8:14-CV-73-T-23JSS, 2016 WL 5106946, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2016). “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, [an expert disclosure] must be accompanied by a written report . . . if the [expert 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). “Any party that ‘without substantial justification' fails to disclose [information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)] is not permitted to use the witness as evidence at trial ‘unless such failure is harmless.'” Prieto v. Malgor, 361 F.3d 1313, 1318 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1)).
DISCUSSION
On July 26, 2022, Plaintiffs disclosed Grant Renne as an expert witness on engineering pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2). Dkt. 35 at 1. Plaintiffs' disclosure did not include an expert report. Id. Defendant now argues that Mr. Renne's testimony should be stricken “due to Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the mandatory Rule 26(a) expert disclosure requirements.” Id. at 2.
The Court agrees. There is no indication that Plaintiffs retained Mr. Renne for any reason beyond providing engineering-based expert testimony. As such, Plaintiffs' disclosure of Mr. Renne as an expert witness required an accompanying disclosure of an expert report “prepared and signed by [Mr. Renne].” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). Plaintiffs have failed to provide such a report or explain why their failure is harmless or substantially justified. Mr. Renne's testimony is therefore properly excluded. See Prieto, 361 F.3d at 1318.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Defendant's unopposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's expert witness (Dkt. 35) is GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED.