Blake v. Securitas Security Services, Inc.
Civil Action No. 2012-1349
D.D.C.May 1, 2013Background
- Blake, a student, attended a school dance where Securitas provided security.
- Blake allegedly sustained serious injuries after accessing a third-floor balcony.
- Plaintiff planned to call Dr. William S. Garmoe as a rebuttal expert.
- Securitas moved to strike Garmoe’s testimony as improper rebuttal and/or unreliable under Rule 702/Daubert.
- The court held Garmoe’s rebuttal was improper and, alternatively, that his disclosure violated Rule 26(a)(2), triggering sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Garmoe’s testimony proper rebuttal under Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii)? | Garmoe rebuts defense opinions on Blake’s mental state. | Garmoe addresses issues not raised by defense experts. | No; not proper rebuttal. |
| Does Garmoe’s report satisfy Rule 26(a)(2) and admissibility standards, or is it an untimely initial report warranting sanctions? | Garmoe’s report should be admissible as rebuttal. | Report is outside scope and disclosure is untimely. | Untimely initial report; sanctions apply; testimony struck. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l Constr., Inc., 608 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (gatekeeping and admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1999) (applies Daubert to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2005) (rebuttal evidence must contradict, impeach, or defuse the adverse evidence)
- Norden v. Samper, 544 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2008) (preclusion sanction for failure to timely disclose expert)