Douglas v. Burley ex rel. Hill, 134 So. 3d 692

Burley filed a wrongful-death action on June 7, 2004 for the deaths of Francesca Hill and her two children after a Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association vehicle collision.
Burley identified and later withdrew liability expert Ricky Shivers amid Rule 26(b)(4) disclosures and multiple compels; discovery and scheduling were repeatedly reset.
A scheduling order required Burley’s experts by May 30, 2005 and defendants’ by June 30, 2005; discovery to be completed by December 31, 2005; trial set for April 3, 2006, later extended.
On October 8, 2010, Burley and Hill designated Alvin Rosenhan as a liability expert, asserting Rosenhan could testify about accident causation involving YVEPA’s employee.
YVEPA moved to strike Rosenhan as untimely and noncompliant with Rule 26(b)(4); Hill sought substitution as administrator, with questions about standing and proper procedure.
The trial court allowed Rosenhan’s designation and continued the trial; YVEPA appealed, arguing an abuse of discretion and improper scheduling/Rule 4.04 procedure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion in allowing Rosenhan’s designation	Rosenhan was timely under remand and special circumstances.	Rosenhan was untimely and failed Rule 26(b)(4) requirements.	Yes; trial court abused discretion by allowing the designation.
Whether remand wiped clean prior scheduling orders for discovery	Remand creates a clean slate permitting new designations.	Scheduling orders remain in force unless extended by proper motion.	No; prior deadlines remained in effect; Rosenhan designation violated them.
Whether Rule 4.04 permits belated designation when a substitution occurs	Special circumstances allow designation under Rule 4.04 to prevent injustice.	Rule 4.04 does not override scheduling orders or require a new designation.	No; Rule 4.04 does not excuse failure to comply with scheduling orders.
Whether Rule 26(b)(4) disclosure requirements were satisfied	Rosenhan’s designation would be supplemented later by deposition and discovery.	Designation provided no meaningful information beyond a pleading and violated Rule 26(b)(4).	No; Rosenhan’s designation failed to disclose the substance of opinions and supporting facts.

Bowie v. Montfort Jones Mem'l Hosp., 861 So.2d 1037 (Miss. 2003) (discovery deadlines and expert-designation standards)
Burley v. Douglas, 26 So.3d 1013 (Miss. 2009) (standing and procedure in wrongful-death actions)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Lumpkin, 725 So.2d 721 (Miss. 1998) (exclusion of evidence for discovery violations; caution in sanctions)
Estate of Bolden ex rel. Bolden v. Williams, 17 So.3d 1069 (Miss. 2009) (when to exclude evidence and impact on justice, not form)
Crawford v. Wall, 593 So.2d 1014 (Miss. 1992) (pre-trial discovery is governed by flexible rules)