Saiyed v. Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc.
321 F.R.D. 455
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs sued CAIR-Action Network alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Virginia and D.C. consumer protection laws arising from attempts to obtain legal representation.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Defendant on January 29, 2015; the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact (Lopez v. CAIR Action Network).
- District Judge limited the case to three Virginia-law claims and restricted Plaintiffs to two expert witnesses; expert reports were due and motions to strike by deadline were set.
- Plaintiffs disclosed two reports by Joseph Schmitz ("Founding" and "Ethics") and several psychological reports by Dr. Ron Kimball; Defendant moved to strike both Schmitz reports in full and parts of Kimball’s reports under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and 37(c)(1).
- Defendant argued the Founding Report is irrelevant/prejudicial character evidence, the Ethics Report contains improper legal conclusions and state-of-mind opinions, and Kimball’s reports lack underlying data required by Rule 26; Plaintiffs defended relevance, proposed supplementation, and conceded withdrawal of some Schmitz opinions.
- Magistrate Judge Robinson denied the motion as premature, explaining expert reports are not pleadings subject to Rule 12(f), urging use of depositions, Daubert/motions in limine, supplementation under Rule 26(e), or rebuttal experts to address any admissibility or disclosure defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert reports may be stricken under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) | Schmitz/Kimball reports are proper expert disclosures; Rule 12(f) is not the right vehicle | Expert reports contain immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, or insufficiently disclosed material and should be stricken | Denied as premature: expert reports are not pleadings and thus generally not subject to Rule 12(f); objections are for testimony/motions in limine/Daubert at trial stage |
| Admissibility of Schmitz’s Founding Report (character/modus operandi evidence) | Report is relevant to CAIR’s role and Plaintiffs’ reliance; probative of issues in the case | Material is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial character evidence | Premature to strike; admissibility should be addressed by deposition, motion in limine, or at trial |
| Whether Schmitz’s Ethics Report should be excluded for offering legal conclusions/state-of-mind opinions | Portions are proper expert opinion; if defects exist Plaintiffs should cure rather than wholesale exclusion | Report contains impermissible legal conclusions and should be stricken in entirety | Plaintiffs conceded some improper portions; wholesale strike is overbroad. Court favors targeted limits/motion in limine rather than full exclusion |
| Adequacy of Kimball’s Psych Reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) (missing underlying data) | Any missing data/lost materials were inadvertent; parties agreed to supplement and cooperate | Reports lack required facts/data and thus should be struck or excluded | No strike now: parties agreed to supplementation; court allows cure under Rule 26(e) and preserves Defendant’s ability to depose, contest admissibility, or file Daubert/motion in limine |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Council on American–Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc., 826 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (appellate reversal of summary judgment; remanded for further proceedings)
- U.S. ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of Am., 474 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2007) (expert disclosures under Rule 26 are not pleadings and are not properly stricken under Rule 12(f))
- Barnes v. District of Columbia, 289 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2012) (motions to strike expert reports are disfavored)
- Iacangelo v. Georgetown Univ., 560 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008) (identifying impermissible legal conclusions in expert reports and recommending targeted limits or motions in limine)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 224 F.R.D. 261 (D.D.C. 2004) (motions to strike are within court’s discretion but generally disfavored)