Opinion
Case No. 3:12-cv-357
11-05-2013
TRACEY BARKER, Plaintiff, v. MARCUS HERRON, et al., Defendants.
Judge Timothy S. Black
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY
OF DR. GERALD STEIMAN (Doc. 23)
This civil action is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants' expert witness, Dr. Gerald Steiman (Doc. 23), Defendants' brief in opposition (Doc. 27) and Plaintiff's reply (Doc. 29).
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff brought this lawsuit subsequent to a road collision between Plaintiff's automobile and a semi-tractor driven by one of the Defendants. (Doc. 23 at 2). Plaintiff maintains that she suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of this accident. Defendants deny liability and the extent of Plaintiff's injuries.
Dr. Steiman is one of Defendants' medical experts. (Id.) Prior to Dr. Steiman conducting an independent medical examination (IME) of Plaintiff, the parties agreed, in the presence of the Court at an informal discovery dispute conference, that Dr. Steiman would not require Plaintiff to fill out Dr. Steiman's typical questionnaire. (Doc. 27 at 2; see also Doc. 23 Exs. 1-3). The Court memorialized the parties' agreement.
However, when Plaintiff met with Dr. Steiman to undergo the IME, Dr. Steiman requested that Plaintiff complete the questionnaire, and Plaintiff acquiesced and did in fact fill out the questionnaire. (Doc. 23 at 2). Plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Steiman followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A United States District Court has the inherent power to sanction litigants who come before the court, independent of any promulgated rules of procedure. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). The exercise of this inherent power "requires a finding of bad faith," First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501, 517 (6th Cir. 2002), or conduct which is "tantamount to bad faith." Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980). When faced with conduct that abuses the judicial process, courts have the discretion to fashion appropriate sanctions against the offending litigants, including the outright dismissal of the lawsuit. Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44-45.
III. ANALYSIS
At the outset, the Court recognizes that what transpired here was at best an unfortunate turn of events. The parties agreed that Plaintiff would not fill out the questionnaire, and Defendants made Dr. Steiman aware of this agreement, but Dr. Steiman still requested that Plaintiff fill out the document and Plaintiff elected to complete it. There is no evidence, however, that this episode is the result of bad faith on the part of Defendants or their counsel. Dr. Steiman is the one who acted improperly.
Here, there is no evidence that Defendants' conduct "attempted to 'obstruct' and 'delay' resolution of the action." Jaynes v. Austin, 20 F. Appx. 421, 427 (6th Cir. 2001). Nor is it true that Defendants demonstrated "an overly aggressive style of litigation ..., which is deserving of sanctions." Mann v. Univ. Cincinnati, No. 95-31955 and No. 953292, 1997 WL 280188, at *6 (6th Cir. May 27, 1997). Here, unlike in Mann, neither Defendants nor defense counsel committed "outrageous and inexplicable conduct" that "violated both the letter and the spirit of the discovery rules,." Id. at *5-*6.
Nevertheless, whatever motivated Dr. Steiman to cast aside the parties' agreement, reached in the presence of the Court, the effect of his violation of the agreed upon procedures was tantamount to bad faith. That is, the practical effect of Dr. Steiman having ignored the parties' agreement is the same as if he had disregarded the agreed upon discovery procedures in bad faith. The Court would be fully within its power to sanction Defendants "for impermissible conduct that adversely impacts the entire litigation." Marietta, 307 F.3d at 517.
However, what presents here is complicated by the truth that Plaintiff agreed to complete the questionnaire.
On balance, the Court cannot make a finding that Defendants engaged in bad faith, and while Dr. Steiman's conduct might properly be considered conduct that is tantamount to bad faith, there is no showing that the conduct reflects Defendants' willful abuse of the judicial process.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Gerald Steiman (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge