James Bradshaw v. FFE Transportation Services, I, 715 F.3d 1104

Bradshaw sued FFE Transportation Services, Inc., Booker, Sr., and others in a diversity action; the jury awarded Bradshaw $1,000,000, later affirmed on appeal.
The January 18, 2006 collision outside Hope, Arkansas involved Booker driving a semi-trailer for FFE, causing Bradshaw’s injuries; liability was admitted as to Booker acting for FFE.
A final scheduling order (as of January 19, 2010) set discovery deadlines and expert disclosure timelines with a waiver for late discovery unless timely shown.
Bradshaw disclosed treating physicians Dr. Floyd and Dr. Hutson on June 25, 2010, inviting depositions and indicating intent to call treating physicians for testimony.
At the second trial (January 10, 2012), Bradshaw’s witnesses Floyd and Hutson testified; FFE and Booker sought to introduce additional witnesses (Peebles, McAlister) not timely disclosed; the district court refused to reopen discovery and sustained Bradshaw’s limitation on new evidence.
The district court allowed Hutson’s undisclosed anatomical drawings as demonstrative aids, limited their use, and admitted Floyd’s video deposition; no witnesses from the first trial were called at the second trial by FFE or Booker.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bradshaw properly disclosed expert testimony from his treating physicians	Bradshaw disclosed intent to call treating physicians and allowed deposition access	Disclosures were insufficient to reveal content of opinions	No abuse of discretion; waiver found for failure to object timely
Whether the district court erred by not reopening discovery for additional witnesses in retrial	New witnesses were necessary to respond to surprise testimony	Discovery did not warrant reopening; retrial timing unchanged	Not an abuse of discretion; no reopening of discovery required
Whether Hutson’s anatomical drawings were admissible as demonstrative aids	Drawings aided understanding of medical testimony	Undisclosed and potentially substantive evidence; risk of prejudice	Within court’s discretion; properly treated as demonstrative aids under trial control
Whether the admission of Dr. Floyd’s video deposition was proper given discovery timing	Video deposition supported by disclosure	Hearing partly relied on undisclosed content	Proper under stipulated prior agreement and undisputed disclosure (no reversible error)

Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (Supreme Court-1965) (federal rules in diversity actions apply to procedure)
Hiatt v. Mazda Motor Corp., 75 F.3d 1252 (8th Cir.-1996) (procedure in diversity cases; substantive state law applies)
Warner v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 739 F.2d 1347 (8th Cir.-1984) (issues of admissibility of evidence are federal law in diversity cases)
Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340 F.3d 520 (8th Cir.-2003) (broad discretion in admissibility of expert testimony)
Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638 (8th Cir.-2002) (narrow and deferential review of discovery rulings)
Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d 358 (8th Cir.-2003) (discovery waiver when objections not raised timely)
Harris v. Steelweld Equip. Co., 869 F.2d 396 (8th Cir.-1989) (discretion to reopen discovery is not automatic upon retrial)
Forklifts of St. Louis, Inc. v. Komatsu Forklift, USA, Inc., 178 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir.-1999) (admission of expert testimony when objections not preserved)
Crockett v. United States, 49 F.3d 1357 (8th Cir.-1995) (visual aids and trial court’s discretion in using undisclosed aids)
Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R., 620 F.3d 896 (8th Cir.-2010) (treating physician disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(B))