Opinion
No.05C-11-021 WLW.
November 17, 2006.
November 17, 2006.
Shawn Harrison, pro se.
Michael W. Arrington, Esquire of Parkowski, Guerke Swayze, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for the Defendants.
ORDER Upon Defendant's Motion in Limine. Granted.
Defendant, Extreme Nite Club ("Extreme"), filed a Motion in Limine to exclude the Plaintiff, Shawn Harrison ("Mr. Harrison"), from introducing expert testimony related to permanency of injuries, or expert testimony related to the causal connection between the alleged injuries and the alleged incident. The Defendant argues that Mr. Harrison failed to identify any individual expert witness in the answer to interrogatories and pretrial stipulation. The Defendant claims that expert testimony is required for Plaintiff to prove the causal connection between the alleged injuries and alleged incident, and to prove the alleged permanent injuries sustained by the Plaintiff.
Mr. Harrison is Pro Se.
In accordance with the Trial Scheduling Order, all discovery was required to be completed by September 7, 2006. The Parties filed the Pretrial Stipulation, on September 12, 2006, and the Court entered the Pretrial Stipulation as an Order on October 17, 2006. In addition, the Court has issued an amended Trial Management Order governing this case.
In Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, Mr. Harrison answered that he had no fact witnesses, and no expert witnesses to call at trial. Yet, Mr. Harrison also stated that Mrs. Beverly W. would be testifying as an expert as to the alleged permanent injury he sustained.
Interrogatory 6 Interrogatory 8, First Set of Interrogatories
Interrogatory 14, First Set of Interrogatories: The interrogatory was: If you are claiming permanent injury, state the name, address, and phone number of the expert who will testify as to your permanent injury? The Plaintiff answered: "MRS. BEVERLY W., DISABILITY A. NEW CASTLE, DE #(302)-324-7699 EXT. 7666, AND ALL OTHER SPECIALIST."
In the Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories, Mr. Harrison states that St. Francis Hospital, Family Practice Clinic #302-575-8040, will testify to his alleged injuries. Mr. Harrison does not specify an actual person that will testify on his behalf. The Plaintiff broadly states that he expects to call all physicians, and experts stated in reports and further documents, but he fails to explain anything of substance concerning the experts or what they may opine. In the Second Set of Interrogatories, when the Plaintiff is asked about what experts will testify to his alleged personal injuries, Mr. Harrison answers: "Family Practice, Disability and Aloha Medical (phone numbers for all three excluded)." Mr. Harrison does not specifically name Beverly W. as an expert witness concerning his alleged permanent injuries in the Second Set of Interrogatories , as he did in the First set.
Interrogatory 2, Second Set of Interrogatories
Interrogatory 5 Interrogatory 6, Second Set of Interrogatories
Interrogatory 7, Second Set of Interrogatories
The Defendant requested production of all expert reports, etc., on July 25, 2006, and Mr. Harrison responded: "all available and on file, any other will be released by authorized consent." It appears that there are no expert reports on file. There is one medical report on file stemming from Mr. Harrison's visit to the emergency room, but the report is not an expert report.
Defendants' Request for Production Directed to Plaintiff at Question 2
In the Pretrial Stipulation, which this Court entered as an Order, the parties were required to proffer the names and addresses of all witnesses to be called at trial and specialities of experts to be called as witnesses. Mr. Harrison answered: "All evidence documented, are authorized by physicians." It appears that Mr. Harrison is referring to the prior interrogatories previously discussed, and that those Interrogatories provided the names and addresses of the witnesses to be called.
Pretrial Stipulation, Question 6
Id. at A.
On November 9, 2006, after the Discovery Cutoff date, Mr. Harrison filed a "Travel and Expenses" report with the Court, and he states that all expert witnesses travel and expenses equal $0. In the Plaintiff's Expenses Report, he lists Beverly I. Wardiga, Joi Johnson and Jacob Harrison as Expert witnesses. Mr. Harrison does not explain what these people do, or in what capacity they are going to be used in the Plaintiff's case. Further, there is no contact information for the experts provided. Also, there is no proof that the Travel and Expense Report was served on the Defendant, because there is no certificate of service attached to the filed report. Mr. Harrison failed to give the Defendant adequate notice as to the experts listed in the Report and he is limited by the Pre-Trial Stipulation. Therefore, Beverly I. Wardiga, Joi Johnson and Jacob Harrison are not permitted to testify as experts in the trial, but they may testify as fact witnesses. The trial is set for November 27, 2006, and the Defendant would be highly prejudiced if Mr. Harrison were allowed to spring new experts on the Defendant at this juncture of the case.
Plaintiff's November 9, 2006 Travel and Expense Report
It appears that the previously mentioned expert (in Plaintiff's answer to the First set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory 8), Beverly W., is the same person as the now listed Beverly I. Wardiga.
Id.
The only expert that Mr. Harrison specifically states will testify on his behalf at trial is Beverly W., which he stated in his answer to the First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory 14. Mr. Harrison named Beverly W. as an expert that would testify to the alleged permanency of his injuries. Although, Mr. Harrison failed to further name Beverly W. in the Second Set of Interrogatories concerning the same issue, the Defendant was on notice that the Plaintiff intended to call the witness. A phone number was also provided. On the other hand, Mr. Harrison has proffered no information concerning the scope and substance of Beverly W.'s testimony when requested by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is not on notice as to what the content of the proposed expert's testimony may be at trial. Consequently, Beverly W.'s expert testimony is also excluded from trial. The Defendant would be highly prejudiced if Beverly W. is allowed to testify, because the Defendant has not been given any information regarding the scope and content of the proposed expert's testimony.
Based on the foregoing, the Defendant's Motion in Limine is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.