Richardson v. Korson, 905 F. Supp. 2d 193

Troy Richardson sued Korson and Bennett for negligence and § 1983 Fourth/Fifth Amendment claims arising from tight handcuffs and dragging him to a patrol car.
The court previously narrowed the negligence claim to tight handcuffs and the § 1983 claim to a Fourth Amendment violation; Bennett was dismissed for lack of service.
Korson moved for partial summary judgment on the negligence claim, arguing lack of sufficient expert testimony on the standard of care.
Korson also moved to strike Richardson’s supplemental expert report as untimely and prejudicial under Rule 26/37; Richardson opposed.
The court ruled: expert testimony on the standard of care is required; the supplemental report would be admitted with conditions, and discovery would be reopened narrowly.
The court denied summary judgment without prejudice, allowing Korson to renew after additional limited discovery and permitting Korson to add his own expert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony is required to prove the standard of care for handcuffing in a negligence claim.	Richardson argues lay knowledge suffices to understand handcuffing; expert not required.	Korson contends expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care for handcuffing.	Expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care.
Whether Richardson’s untimely supplemental expert report should be stricken.	The Addendum provides necessary basis; late filing can be cured; non-prejudicial overall.	Untimely, prejudicial; deprived Korson of deposition opportunity and discovery planning.	The court will admit the supplemental report with limited reopened discovery; costs of deposition borne by plaintiff.
Whether summary judgment is premature pending limited discovery.	Standard-of-care evidence exists via the expert and addendum; precludes need for more discovery.	Without timely expert, there is insufficient evidence to deny summary judgment; discovery needed.	Summary judgment denied without prejudice; defendant may renew after limited discovery.

Briggs v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 481 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (expert testimony required when subject is beyond lay understanding)
Tillman v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 695 A.2d 94 (D.C. App. 1997) (police handcuffing standard requires expert proof)
Dormu v. Dist. of Columbia, 795 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2011) (limited supplementation allowed to cure prejudice with depositions)
Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst, 231 F.R.D. 3 (D. Del. 2005) (Rule 26(a)(2) requirements; supplemental reports must be timely and non-prejudicial)
Scott v. Dist. of Columbia, 246 F.R.D. 49 (D.D.C. 2007) (prejudice from untimely expert disclosures; need to allow rebuttal discovery)
Keener v. United States, 181 F.R.D. 639 (D. Mont. 1998) (limits on supplementation to prevent abuse of expert discovery)