History
  • No items yet
midpage
Donahoe v. Esurance Insurance Company
8:22-cv-00260
D. Neb.
Jan 18, 2024
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Jacob Donahoe alleged that Esurance Insurance Company wrongfully denied his property damage insurance claim, originally reported as occurring on August 15, 2017.
  • Over the course of the litigation, Donahoe amended his complaint several times, including changing the date of the alleged loss to June 29, 2017, in his Fifth Amended Complaint.
  • The case involved significant motion practice, including multiple amended complaints and a motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint, which was ultimately denied.
  • The original scheduling order set deadlines for discovery and expert designations, but these deadlines passed while the motion to dismiss was pending and after the complaint was amended.
  • After missing the expert deadline, Defendant sought an extension of the progression order; Plaintiff moved to exclude Defendant’s experts due to the missed deadline.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Defendant should be allowed to extend discovery and expert disclosure deadlines after they expired Defendant missed deadlines, so should be barred from presenting expert testimony Delays were justified because of new factual allegations in complaint and pending motion to dismiss Extension of deadlines granted
Whether Defendant should be precluded from offering expert opinions at trial due to missed deadlines Defendant failed to timely disclose experts, so exclusion is required by Rule 37(c)(1) Delay was substantially justified and harmless; no trial date, and Plaintiff not prejudiced Motion to exclude expert opinions denied

Key Cases Cited

  • Wegener v. Johnson, 527 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2008) (discusses court’s broad discretion on sanctions for Rule 26 violations, emphasizing exclusion as a harsh and sparing remedy)
  • Roderick v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 666 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2012) (sets out factors for whether a Rule 26 violation is justified or harmless)
  • Albright ex rel. Doe v. Mountain Home Sch. Dist., 926 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2019) (explains 'excusable neglect' standard for extending deadlines)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Donahoe v. Esurance Insurance Company
Court Name: District Court, D. Nebraska
Date Published: Jan 18, 2024
Docket Number: 8:22-cv-00260
Court Abbreviation: D. Neb.