342 F. Supp. 3d 218
D.P.R.2018Background
- This is a medical-malpractice diversity action by Zoraida Díaz’s siblings alleging misdiagnosis and improper treatment at Doctors’ Center Hospital and by hematologist Dr. Pesquera leading to Zoraida’s severe neurologic injury and permanent incapacitation.
- Procedural posture: several in limine motions filed; trial continued pending resolution. Remaining defendants: Doctors’ Center Hospital and Pesquera; one defendant defaulted; others dismissed.
- Key contested pretrial matters: (1) plaintiffs sought to bar defendants from calling expert witnesses; (2) plaintiffs sought to exclude deposition transcripts of experts Katia Dávila-Díaz and Kenneth Miller under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e); (3) defendants sought to exclude proposed expert testimony from plaintiff José Díaz and Boris Rojas, testimony from witnesses Dávila and Iris González, and a "Day in the Life" video.
- Timeline and disclosures: the court’s scheduling order set deadlines for expert disclosures; plaintiffs originally identified José Díaz as a fact witness but listed him as both fact and expert in a joint pretrial order shortly before trial.
- Factual relevance contested: plaintiffs’ derivative emotional-distress claims depend on proof of negligence toward Zoraida (causation and injury), so testimony and exhibits demonstrating Zoraida’s condition and causation (including expert neurology/hematology testimony and the video) are central.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to preclude defendants from calling experts | Defs failed to disclose experts timely; should be barred | No experts were designated by defendants | Moot — defendants stated they had no expert designation |
| Admissibility of Kenneth Miller deposition transcript under Rule 30(e) | Transcript should be excluded for alleged untimely errata/review | Transcript timely provided; no specific errata identified | Denied; plaintiffs ordered to submit errata by deadline |
| Admissibility of Katia Dávila deposition transcript under Rule 30(e) | Transcript should be excluded for Rule 30 defects | Transcript availability/date not shown; no specific errors alleged | Denied; plaintiffs ordered to submit errata by deadline |
| Whether José Díaz may testify as an expert (Rule 26/37) | Plaintiffs seek to elicit expert neurology opinions from José Díaz | Defendants argue failure to disclose expert and reports; seek preclusion | Granted — José Díaz may testify as a lay/treating percipient witness but is excluded as an expert for untimely disclosure |
| Admissibility of Boris Rojas expert testimony | Plaintiffs: Rojas will show TTP caused Zoraida’s CNS damage and support derivative emotional claims | Defendants: testimony about non-party’s condition is confusing/prejudicial under Rule 403 | Denied — Rojas’s testimony is relevant to causation and derivative emotional claims and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Admissibility of Dávila testimony and "Day-in-the-Life" video | Plaintiffs: both are probative of Zoraida’s condition and plaintiffs’ emotional distress | Defendants: Dávila’s scope exceeds disclosures; video is unduly prejudicial/confusing | Dávila testimony allowed (disclosure sufficient); Gonzalez witness waived; Video admissible if authenticated; Rule 403 reviewed and probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., 618 F.3d 253 (3d Cir.) (Rule 30(e) 30-day clock runs from reporter's notice transcript available)
- Gómez v. Rivera Rodríguez, 344 F.3d 103 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing lay treating-witness testimony from expert testimony)
- Macaulay v. Anas, 321 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (Rule 26 disclosure obligations and sanction rationale to avoid trial by ambush)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S.) (expert testimony admissibility framework)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S.) (Daubert standard applies to technical and specialized expert testimony)
- Poulis-Minott v. Smith, 388 F.3d 354 (1st Cir.) (untimely expert disclosure and the need to prevent unfair tactical advantage)