Allstate Insurance v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 846
| N.D. Ill. | 2012Background
- Allstate sued Electrolux for damages from a dryer fire and designated Keefe as an expert under Rule 26(a)(2).
- Keefe’s sixteen-page report cited Confidential Documents from a Carrier One arbitration and other non-confidential materials.
- Carrier One arbitration required confidentiality; content and results could not be used in other proceedings.
- Electrolux sought to strike Keefe’s report or disqualify him for relying on Confidential Documents in forming his opinion.
- Keefe testified that he did not rely on Confidential Documents in this case, though he listed them in Appendix I as part of his background.
- The court held a December 14, 2011 hearing and later ordered limited relief: strike references to Confidential Documents and amend the report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May an expert rely on confidential information not produced to the other side? | Allstate argues Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires disclosure of facts/data considered, including confidential info. | Electrolux contends confidential materials cannot be used or cross-examined without breaching confidentiality. | No; confidential materials may not be used in forming opinions or cross-examined on. |
| May cross-examination cover confidential information not produced in this case? | Allstate maintains disclosure allows cross-exam; otherwise information remains unavailable. | Electrolux would be unfairly hampered from cross-examining on such material. | No; cross-examination on confidential information from Carrier One is prohibited. |
| Should Keefe be disqualified or his report stricken due to access to confidential information? | Allstate relies on expert integrity and argues no disqualification is necessary given compartmentalization. | Electrolux urges disqualification to preserve confidentiality and fairness. | No; disqualification denied; limited remedy to strike references to Confidential Documents and require amendments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Intercounty Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 412 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2005) (broader standard for what ‘considered’ means in Rule 26 disclosures)
- Ciomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2008) (warns against incomplete expert disclosures and supports curative remedies)