WHEN BOTH PARTIES VIOLATED FED RULE 26, NO LATE DISCLOSED EXPERTS WERE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY IN THE ACTION, BUT THE COURT HAS SUBSTANTIAL DISCRETION TO PERMIT UNTIMELY DISCLOSURES AND TO TAKE MEASURES TO CURE THE PREJUDICE THAT ACCOMPANIES THEM
JOHN R. HOULE, Plaintiff, v. JUBILEE FISHERIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
CASE NO. C04-2346JLR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1408
January 5, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff deckhand sued defendants, the owners and operators of a vessel, asserting claims under the Jones Act and the maritime doctrine of unseaworthiness. The owners moved for summary judgment and an order striking testimony from two of the deckhand's expert witnesses. In addition, both deckhand and the owners filed motions in limine.
OVERVIEW: The deckhand developed Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) while working on the owners' vessel. He alleged that the owners' negligence and the vessel's unseaworthiness were responsible, at least in part, for his CTS. His claims relied upon expert witnesses to prove causation and damages. The owners sought to strike the deckhand's experts and for summary judgment. The deckhand moved in limine to strike the owners' experts and to exclude certain evidence. Neither party complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and the court's scheduling order when disclosing expert witnesses. No late-disclosed experts would be permitted to testify. While it appeared that two of the deckhand's experts might not be qualified to offer opinions about the cause of the deckhand's CTS, the record did not establish that the experts' training and experience and methodology for determining causation were inadequate. The court reserved its decision on the admissibility of those experts' opinions under Fed. R. Evid. 702, pending an evidentiary hearing. The parties resolved most of the other evidentiary issues.
OUTCOME: The court reserved ruling on the owners' summary judgment motion, pending an evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of testimony from the deckhand's experts. The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, declining to preclude evidence of the owners' maintenance and cure payments to the deckhand and reserving ruling on the admissibility of evidence of the deckhand's past drug and alcohol use.
