Jones v. Nvr Incorporation, Civil Action No. 2020-0453

Background:

Jones bought a newly constructed home from NVR and alleges longstanding plumbing leaks that caused structural damage and toxic mold, resulting in health problems for her and her children.
Jones filed suit (removed to federal court); multiple claims were dismissed, leaving breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and strict liability.
The Court’s Scheduling Order required proponent expert disclosures by September 30, 2020 and closed discovery February 26, 2021; Jones did not disclose any experts by these deadlines.
Jones first relied on multiple "retained" experts (mold testing, medical, remediation/repair estimates) in her opposition to NVR’s summary judgment motion and then filed untimely "Supplemented Disclosures."
NVR moved in limine and to strike, arguing Jones’s expert and some lay-derived materials were undisclosed and therefore inadmissible; Jones argued production of underlying documents and difficulties retaining experts made late disclosure harmless or justified.
Court held Jones failed to show substantial justification or harmlessness for late expert disclosure, barred her from offering expert testimony or reports, struck specific expert-related exhibits and portions of Kundera’s affidavit, but declined to categorically exclude lay witnesses (denying that part without prejudice).

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jones may rely on expert testimony disclosed after the court-ordered deadline	Late disclosure was harmless because underlying records were produced and she attempted to retain experts; supplementation should be allowed	Untimely disclosure violated Rule 26 and the Scheduling Order, prejudicing NVR and warranting preclusion under Rule 37(c)(1)	Jones barred from using expert witnesses or expert reports (preclusion mandated; no substantial justification or harmlessness shown)
Whether to strike expert-related affidavits and exhibits submitted with Jones’s summary judgment opposition	Underlying documents were produced in discovery; exhibits should be considered or cured by supplementation	Exhibits rely on undisclosed experts and must be stricken per Rule 37	Court struck specified expert reports, lab results, proposals/estimates, resumes, and affidavits tied to untimely experts; reserved ruling on other admissibility issues for summary judgment opinion
Whether portions of Anthony Kundera’s affidavit should be excluded as undisclosed expert opinion	Kundera is a lay witness who can testify about observations and health effects	Portions of the affidavit offer technical opinions (mold remediation, repair standards, cost estimates) that required expert disclosure	Struck the portions of Kundera’s affidavit that opine based on specialized training/certification and cost-estimate sections; left remainder intact
Whether lay witness testimony is limited to topics disclosed in initial disclosures and interrogatory responses	(Not fully developed) Jones relied on Kundera’s lay testimony and other lay declarations	NVR seeks to limit lay testimony to topics disclosed, arguing Jones’ disclosures were sparse and not supplemented	Denied without prejudice as to excluding lay testimony; Court declined to preclude lay witnesses now but struck portions that function as expert opinion; admissibility will be addressed at summary judgment/trial stage

Key Cases Cited

Daniels v. Dist. of Columbia, 15 F. Supp. 3d 62 (D.D.C. 2014) (distinguishing retained experts from non-retained experts and disclosure obligations)
Norden v. Samper, 544 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2008) (Rule 37(c)(1) preclusion mandatory absent substantial justification)
Elion v. Jackson, 544 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (burden on sanctioned party to show substantial justification or harmlessness)
Wannall v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 292 F.R.D. 26 (D.D.C. 2013) (limits on post-deadline supplementation of expert reports)
Iancangelo v. Georgetown Univ., 272 F.R.D. 233 (D.D.C. 2011) (party must disclose experts; opposing counsel not required to solicit disclosures)
Scott v. Dist. of Columbia, 246 F.R.D. 49 (D.D.C. 2007) (untimely expert disclosures can cause prejudice and justify exclusion)