Fenner et al v. Elite Transportation Group, Inc. et al, No. 2:2014cv01395 - Document 96 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 89 Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion Testimony and MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fenner et al v. Elite Transportation Group, Inc. et al Doc. 96 U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A PATRICIA FEN N ER, ET AL., Plain tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 14 -13 9 5 ELITE TRAN SPORTATION GROU P IN C., ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 3 ) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is a com bined m otion in lim ine to exclude opinion testim ony and a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 1 The m otion was filed by Defendants Elite Transportation Group; Calex Express, Inc.; and Robert Rogers (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs oppose the m otion. 2 The Court has considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, and now issues its ruling. For the reasons that follow, the m otion in lim ine is D EN IED AS MOOT, and the m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is D EN IED . BACKGROU N D This m atter arises out of a rear-end m otor-vehicle collision that occurred on Septem ber 13, 20 13, on Interstate 12 (“I-12”) in St. Tam m any Parish, Louisiana. 3 Plaintiff was the lead driver in that rear-end collision and allegedly suffered various injuries. 4 As a result, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on J une 13, 20 14. 5 On December 15, 20 15, Defendants filed the present m otion, a com bined motion in lim ine and m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 6 First, Defendants seek to preclude certain 1 R. Doc. 89. R. Doc. 91. 3 R. Doc. 89-1 at 2. 4 R. Doc. 89-1 at 2. 5 See R. Doc. 1. 6 See generally R. Docs. 89, 89-1. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from testifying at trial. 7 According to Defendants, the Plaintiffs failed to adequately and properly designate certain expert witnesses in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, warranting the exclusion of their testim ony. 8 Defendants also contend the Plaintiffs failed to provide expert reports for certain witnesses, which violates Rule 26, and those experts should be precluded from testifying. 9 In sum , the Defendants argue “Plaintiffs have not set forth or provided the specific opinions that Plaintiffs intend to elicit from any of these experts and have not provided an expert report or otherwise complied with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”10 Second, the Defendants argue, in light of the foregoing violations of Rule 26, that sum m ary judgm ent is appropriate and the Plaintiffs’ claim s should be dism issed. Defendants contend “Plaintiffs’ failure to properly designate experts is fatal to their claim s.”11 According to the Defendants, “[i]n the absence of expert opinion testim ony to establish m edical causation and the reasonableness and necessity of the recom m ended course of treatm ent,” the Plaintiffs are unable to prove the essential elem ents of their claim s. 12 Defendants thus seek to be dism issed from this case on sum m ary judgm ent. LAW AN D AN ALYSIS The Court will first address the Defendants’ in lim ine argum ents with respect to certain expert witnesses retained by Plaintiffs. The Court will then address the Defendants’ m otion insofar as it seeks a sum m ary judgm ent dism issal of Plaintiffs’ claim s. 7 See R. Doc. 89-1 at 5– 6. R. Doc. 89-1 at 4. 9 R. Doc. 89-1 at 4. 10 R. Doc. 89-1 at 5. 11 R. Doc. 89-1 at 12. 12 R. Doc. 89-1 at 12. 8 2 I. M OTION IN L IMINE : E XPERT TESTIMONY & R ULE 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) requires each party to “disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it m ay use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 70 2, 70 3, or 70 5.” If the witness is “one retained or specially em ployed to provide expert testim ony,” the Rule 26(a)(2)(A) disclosure m ust be accom panied by a written expert report. 13 In this case, the Plaintiffs were required to disclose the identity of all expert witness and provide copies of reports for any retained experts no later than October 26, 20 15. 14 Plaintiffs failed to tim ely provide expert reports for the following of Plaintiffs’ retained experts: Nathaniel Fentress, Dr. J . Stuart Wood, and Mike Sunseri. Plaintiffs have stipulated they will not call these experts as witnesses. 15 As a result, these experts are precluded from testifying at trial. The m otion in lim ine is D EN IED AS MOOT. The Court reaches a different conclusion, in part, with respect to Drs. Dietze, J ohnson, and Satterlee, as well as with respect to Beth Shanks, Laurie Banks, and Barbara Franceski. All of these witnesses are healthcare providers who have treated Plaintiff Patricia Fenner. Plaintiffs adm ittedly did not produce expert reports for these healthcare providers, but those providers are not retained experts and, thus, Plaintiffs were not required to produce expert reports for these witnesses. Plaintiff’s healthcare providers m ay testify as to (1) Plaintiff’s treatm ent; (2) whether they believe Plaintiff’s sym ptom s are related to the accident-in-question; (3) their diagnosis of Plaintiff, and (4) Plaintiff’s future m edical needs. However, these witnesses m ay not testify as to the cost of Plaintiff’s 13 F ED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B). R. Doc. 66 at 6 (Scheduling Order). 15 R. Doc. 91 at 10 . 14 3 past or future m edical care, nor are they perm itted to otherwise offer opinion testim ony under Federal Rules of Evidence 70 2, 70 3, or 70 5. II. M OTION FOR SUMMARY J UDGMENT Defendants also seek a sum m ary judgm ent dism issal of Plaintiffs’ claim s. The Defendants contend “Plaintiffs’ failure to properly designate experts is fatal to their claim s,” as without expert testim ony, “Plaintiffs cannot prove the[] essential elem ents of their prim a facie case of negligence.”16 However, because the Court has concluded that certain m edical experts m ay testify with respect to causation, 17 the m otion for sum m ary judgm ent m ust be denied. Genuine issues of m aterial fact rem ain in dispute with respect to the ultim ate cause of Plaintiff Patricia Fenner’s injuries, i.e., whether her injuries are causally related to the accident-in-question. 18 In addition to the testim ony of Plaintiff’s treating healthcare providers, Dr. Najeeb Thom as is listed as a witness of both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in the proposed pretrial order. 19 Dr. Thom as perform ed an independent m edical exam ination of Plaintiff. 20 Dr. Thom as testified in his deposition that Plaintiff’s injuries “would be related” to the accident-in-question. 21 Sum m ary judgm ent is denied. CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that the Defendants’ m otion in lim ine to exclude opinion testim ony is D EN IED AS MOOT, and Defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is D EN IED , as set forth above. 16 R. Doc. 89-1 at 12. See supra LAW AND ANALYSIS, P ART I. 18 R. Doc. 89-2; R. Doc. 91-1 at 3– 4. 19 See R. Doc. 93 at 15, 17 (Proposed Pretrial Order). 20 R. Doc. 91-18 (Deposition of Najeeb Thom as). 21 R. Doc. 91-18 at 29 (Deposition of Dr. Najeeb Thom as). 17 4 N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 1s t d ay o f Fe bru ary, 2 0 16 . ____________ __________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
