A federal judge allowed Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois with leave to file a disclosure for its expert witness beyond the initial deadline in a motorcycle industry suit.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen of The Eastern District of Missouri’s Eastern Division granted Safeco its motion for leave to serve supplemental Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure. She denied plaintiff Cynthia M. Rohde’s motion to strike the expert witness, Dr. Brett A. Taylor, a physician who examined Rohde for the defendant.
Rohde’s suggested that Safeco’s disclosure of Dr. Taylor as an expert was not only past the deadline but was never justified and could negatively impact the case. Safeco, however, suggested that being extended a chance to still file the disclosure is just the opposite.
A federal judge gave a defendant more time to produce an expert witness' report, and reset deadlines in the insurance coverage case.
| Unsplash/Bill Oxford
Judge Cohen sided with Safeco and pointed out that the insurance company isn’t asking to use Dr. Taylor’s findings as evidence for a motion or any other step in the court proceedings.
“Safeco, instead, is seeking leave only to serve a supplemental Rule (26)(A)(2) disclosure that would clearly identify Dr. Taylor as an expert witness for Safeco and disclose Dr. Taylor’s report, beyond a relevant deadline set by the court,”Judge Cohen wrote in her order. “The court finds there is good cause for Safeco’s late disclosure under the circumstances.”
The court also set new deadlines, giving Safeco until April 17 to issue its supplemental disclosure for Taylor, including his signed report. Rohde’s deadline to depose Taylor is May 18, and she has until June 17 to disclose rebuttal expert witnesses.
Safeco can depose its rebuttal expert witnesses by July 17.
Judge Cohen set the trial date on Feb. 22, 2021.
Rohde's complaint alleges that she suffered injuries after her vehicle was struck by a second vehicle in July 2017. The claim states a third driver, whose identity isn’t known, hit the vehicle that collided with Rohde's vehicle. Rohde said she was covered through four Safeco policies for uninsured motorist insurance. She sued after Safeco “failed and refused to pay all amounts that [Rohde] would have been entitled to recover from” the mystery driver, according to court documents.