Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-1700 Fax: (602) 200-7846 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Brad Weekley, Penny Dahlberg, Guy Gorman and Dave Boatwright UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA James W. Field, Plaintiff, v. County of La Paz, et al., Defendants. LA PAZ DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE UNDISCLOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY CV 03-2214-PHX SRB

Defendants Boatwright, Dahlberg, Gorman and Weekley, through counsel, and pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and 37(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move this Court for an Order precluding Plaintiff from introducing evidence of undisclosed expert testimony. This motion is supported by the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The parties to this action participated in a pretrial conference on July 25, 2005, in which the Court scheduled deadlines in this matter. At that time, the Court set an expert

1631235.1

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 174

Filed 05/22/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

disclosure deadline of September 9, 2005. This deadline has long since passed and Plaintiff has failed to timely disclose expert opinions or any witnesses to testify about the electrical conditions on Plaintiff's property.1 Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B), a party has an obligation to disclose the subject matter on which their retained expert is expected to testify, a report regarding the expert opinions, a list of the expert's qualifications, publications and prior testimony and fee schedule. Similarly, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A), each party is to disclose the name and

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1

anticipated areas of testimony for each witness. As outlined in Rule 37(C)(1), FED. R. CIV. P., a party who fails to timely disclose witness information, "shall not, unless such failure is harmless, be permitted to use evidence at trial ... the information or witness not disclosed." In this case, the remaining issue is whether the electrical conditions on Plaintiff's property were a health and safety hazard sufficient to recommend termination of electrical service. It is anticipated that Plaintiff will call numerous family members and friends to establish his burden of proof on whether the electrical conditions on his property were a "health and safety hazard." Plaintiff, has not, however disclosed any expert witnesses to testify about the electrical conditions on the property. Thus, any expert opinions regarding the "health and safety hazards" on Plaintiff's property from any of Plaintiff's disclosed See Court Order dated April 27, 2006, page 26, acknowledging that Plaintiff does not have the qualifications or experience to test or give opinions about the electrical conditions on his property.
2

1631235.1

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 174

Filed 05/22/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

witnesses would be inappropriate and must be precluded. To allow Plaintiff to parade his friends and family members in front of the jury and have these witnesses testify without foundation or disclosure as experts and to render expert opinions is unduly prejudicial to Defendants. Defendants have clearly been deprived of not only timely disclosure of any testimony for Plaintiff's witnesses but in reality, any disclosure of any expert opinions. Based on the non-disclosure of expert opinions by Plaintiff's witnesses pursuant to

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1631235.1

Rule 26, Plaintiff's witnesses must be precluded from giving any expert opinions or testifying about the electrical conditions on Plaintiff's property pursuant to Rule 37(c). To allow otherwise, would be inherently prejudicial to the Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request their Motion in Limine be granted. DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

BY s/Jennifer L. Holsman John T. Masterson Jennifer L. Holsman 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants, Brad Weekley, Penny Dahlberg, Guy Gorman and Dave Boatwright COPY of the foregoing mailed this even date to: James. W. Field PO Box 248 Salome, Arizona 85348 Plaintiff Pro Per

3

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 174

Filed 05/22/2006

Page 3 of 3