Donahoe v. Esurance Insurance Company
8:22-cv-00260
D. Neb.Jan 18, 2024Background
- 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)
