United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division
January 27, 2015
JONATHAN STAUFENBIEL, Plaintiff,
AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosures as Non-Compliant (Doc. 38). Plaintiff responded (Doc. 40). For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion in part.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s disclosures do not comply with Rule 26 because Plaintiff fails to identify the area of expertise or specialty for each of the 74 listed individuals and fails to mention the facts or specific opinions each witness is expected to offer. He requests that the Court strike the expert disclosures and prohibit Plaintiff from offering testimony or other information from the disclosed individuals at trial. Plaintiff responds that his disclosures comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) as they provide a sufficient description of the subject matter and a summary of the facts and opinions upon which the expert is expected to testify. However, upon review of the disclosure (Doc. 39-1) and after conference with the Parties (Doc. 42), the Court finds that Plaintiff’s disclosure does not comply with Federal Rules. Specifically, the disclosure fails to state with sufficient specificity (1) the subject matter on which each witness is expected to present evidence and (2) a summary of the facts and opinions to which each witness is expected to testify. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C)(i), (ii). See also Anderson v. Bristol, Inc., 936 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1059 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 25, 2013) (“District courts have repeatedly held that a mere citation to records fails to satisfy the requirements of [Rule 26(a)(2)(C)].”)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 38) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with an amended disclosure that complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) on or before February 3, 2015.