Jeremy Boatman and Kristi Boatman v. Country Earthmoving, L.L.C., A/K/A Cme, 16-1249

Background

Jeremy and Kristi Boatman hired Country Earthmoving (Country) to construct a retaining wall; the wall failed and the Boatmans sued for breach of contract, warranties, negligence, and fraudulent concealment.
The Boatmans listed contractor Don Sewalson as a fact witness and said he would testify about Country’s work, cause of failure, and damages; they did not designate any experts by the discovery deadline.
Country moved in limine one week before trial to exclude expert testimony because no experts were disclosed; the court denied the motion but offered Country a continuance or the chance to interview Sewalson before he testified, which Country declined.
At trial Country objected to Sewalson’s testimony as improper expert testimony; the court allowed the testimony and later denied motions to strike and for a new trial.
The jury awarded the Boatmans damages but found them 30% at fault; Country appealed the denial of the new-trial motion, arguing Sewalson’s testimony was undisclosed expert testimony and prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in admitting Sewalson’s testimony as undisclosed expert testimony	Sewalson was disclosed as a fact witness and his testimony concerned causation and damages; Boatmans did not present him as a retained expert	Sewalson gave expert-opinion testimony on causation without being designated as an expert or disclosed in supplemental discovery, so it should have been excluded	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in admitting testimony because Sewalson’s testimony was disclosed months before trial and Country was not unfairly surprised
Whether Country was prejudiced by the testimony such that a new trial was required	Boatmans: Country had notice of the testimony and declined offered remedies, so no unfair surprise or prejudice	Country: exclusion was required and its refusal to depose was not waiver of the right to exclude expert testimony	Court held Country was not prejudiced; it refused continuance and thus waived surprise claim; no new trial warranted
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying relief after trial	Boatmans: denial appropriate given discovery history and Country’s tactical choices	Country: district court’s ruling was untenable and prejudicial	Court found discretion properly exercised and supported by evidence; affirmed
Whether reopening discovery or continuance was required as a remedy	Boatmans: offered remedies were reasonable and Country declined them	Country: only adequate remedy would have been exclusion or reopening discovery/new trial	Court found offered remedies adequate; Country’s refusal estopped its later challenge

Key Cases Cited

Dettmann v. Kruckenberg, 613 N.W.2d 238 (Iowa 2000) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 2001) (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Buenaventura, 660 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2003) (prejudice required to reverse despite abuse of discretion)
Whitley v. C.R. Pharmacy Serv., Inc., 816 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2012) (discovery rules aim to avoid surprise)
Mills v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 462 N.W.2d 300 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (preventing gamesmanship and enabling parties to prepare)
Hagenow v. Schmidt, 842 N.W.2d 661 (Iowa 2014) (allowing testimony disclosed before trial where no unfair prejudice occurred)
Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016) (noting limits and subsequent treatment of prior rulings)