Pascoe v. Furniture Brands International, Inc
3:10-cv-00193
W.D.N.C.Feb 4, 2011Background
- This is a Western District of North Carolina civil action where Pascoe and Tambling sue FBI, HDM, and Spicer.
- Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs' expert designations and reports; the motion was renewed after an earlier denial.
- Case management order set expert deadlines and discovery schedule; extension requests were granted for good cause.
- Plaintiffs identified Dr. Faye Sultan as an expert and produced an initial evaluation; December 2010 supplements followed interviews and revised notes.
- The court analyzes the renewed motion to strike with Rule 26(e) supplementation standards and related case law, ultimately denying the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 2010 expert supplements were proper Rule 26(e) supplementation | Pascoe/Tambling argue supplementation within allowed 26(e) timing. | Spicer/Defendants contend supplements exceeded 26(e) and merit exclusion. | Denied; supplementation deemed not a sanctionable abuse. |
| Whether the court should strike the experts entirely or exclude supplemental testimony | Plaintiffs urge not to exclude given discovery planning and notice. | Defendants seek exclusion due to improper supplementation. | Denied; exclusion not warranted under totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallagher v. S. Source Packaging, LLC, 568 F.Supp.2d 624 (E.D.N.C. 2008) (proper supplementation not necessarily abusive; avoid ambush)
- S. States Rack and Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003) (Five-factor test for excluding late-disclosed evidence)
- Ortiz-Lopez v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo Y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2001) (relevance of pretrial disclosures and surprise)