United States District Court, D. Hawaii
VIOLETA ESCOBAR, also known as VIOLETA ESCOBAR CLINE, Individually and as Personal Representative for the ESTATE OF NATHAN CLINE, Deceased, Plaintiff,
AIRBUS HELICOPTERS SAS, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART,
DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF
FROM RELYING ON OR REFERRING TO EVIDENCE AND/OR THEORIES NOT
PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED (ECF No. 216)
Gillmor, United States District Judge
Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 6 (ECF No. 216)
Motion in Limine No. 6 (ECF No. 216) was filed on September
13, 2016. Defendant's Motion No. 6 seeks to preclude
Plaintiff from presenting “any evidence, argument
and/or theories at trial that depart from or attempt to
supplement what is in Plaintiff's expert reports.”
(Def.'s Motion at p. 1, ECF No. 216).
filed an Opposition on September 20, 2016. (ECF No. 269).
Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Motion to the extent
that it precludes her from introducing or relying on
documents in the possession of Defendant.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the parties
to disclose the identities of each expert and, for retained
experts, requires that the disclosure include the
experts' written reports. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2). The
Parties must make their expert disclosures pursuant to the
Court's scheduling order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(2)(D).
26(a)(2)(B)(i) requires that the experts' written reports
contain a complete statement of all opinions the witness will
express and the basis for them. Hambrook v. Smith,
Civ. No. 14-00132 ACK-KJM, 2016 WL 4084110, *2-*3 (D. Haw.
Aug. 1, 2016) (citing Estate of Bojcic v. City of San
Jose, 358 Fed.Appx. 906, 907 (9th Cir. 2009) and
Ciomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 641 (7th
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that the
Court's scheduling order and deadlines imposed by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “to be taken
seriously.” Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42
F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). Timely and careful compliance
with expert disclosure requirements is essential both as a
matter of fairness to litigants and as a matter of orderly
procedure. Suzuki v. Helicopter Consultants of Maui,
Inc., Civ. No. 13-00575JMS-KJM, 2016 WL 3753079, *6 (D.
Haw. July 8, 2016).
witnesses may expand upon, supplement, elaborate, and explain
their theories at trial, but the expert generally may not
testify as to new opinions not contained in the expert
report. Durham v. Cnty. of Maui, No. Civ. 08-00342
JMS-RLP, 2011 WL 2532423, at *7 (D. Haw. June 23, 2011);
Bojcic, 358 Fed.Appx. at 907; Chiriboga v.
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 2011 WL 2295281, at
*5-*6 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2011).
The Portion of Defendant's Motion in Limine that Requests
the Court Preclude Introduction of New Theories is
Parties agree that neither party may introduce new theories
at trial that were not previously disclosed. Plaintiff stated
in her Opposition that “[t]o the extent that Airbus
Helicopters argues that Plaintiff's experts should be
precluded from relying on theories not previously disclosed,
Plaintiff agrees that both parties' experts should be
precluded from doing so.” (Pla.'s Opp. at p. 6, ECF
Motion in Limine No. 6 to preclude Plaintiff from relying on
theories that were not previously disclosed is GRANTED.
Parties are precluded from relying on new theories at trial