Kohl et al v. Werner Co et al, No. 2:2016cv01021 - Document 52 (E.D. Wis. 2018)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on 4/17/2018 granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion to Compel. The plaintiff is ordered to produce copies of the December 1, 2017 email (with the attachment), the October 18, 2017 email (with the attachment), the October 16, 2017 email (with the attachment), and the September 11, 2017 email (with the attachment). (cc: all counsel) (llc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN TODD J. KOHL, Plaintiff, and Case No. 16-CV-1021 GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE COMPANY, Involuntary Plaintiff, vs. WERNER CO., NEW WERNER CO., NEW WERNER HOLDING CO. (DE), INC., BB INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL EXPERT DISCOVERY The defendants have moved to compel production of five email correspondances between plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff’s expert, Dennis Skogen. (Docket # 42.) The plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the emails are privileged pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C). (Docket # 45.) The plaintiff provided me copies of the five emails for in camera review. After reviewing the emails, I find that the plaintiff must provide the defendants copies of the December 1, 2017 email (with the attachment), the October 18, 2017 email (with the attachment), the October 16, 2017 email (with the attachment), and the September 11, 2017 email (with the attachment). Communications between a party’s attorney and expert witnesses are protected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) and (B); however, the rule does not protect communications that: (1) relate to compensation for the expert’s study or testimony; (2) identify facts or data that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or (3) identify assumptions that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming the opinions to be expressed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C)(i)-(iii). After reviewing the withheld emails, I find that the October 16, 2017 email falls under Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i) and the December 1, 2017, October 18, 2017, and September 11, 2017 emails fall under Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(ii). Thus, the plaintiff is ordered to produce those emails. ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to compel (Docket # 42) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The plaintiff is ordered to produce copies of the December 1, 2017 email (with the attachment), the October 18, 2017 email (with the attachment), the October 16, 2017 email (with the attachment), and the September 11, 2017 email (with the attachment). Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 17th day of April, 2018. BY THE COURT: s/Nancy Joseph______________ NANCY JOSEPH United States Magistrate Judge 2
]]>
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.
