In fact, one court has summarized the operation of the two disclosure rules as follows: "[a]n expert report is required to be provided if the expert is retained and specially employed to provide testimony in a case, and it is true this requirement does not apply to Plaintiff's treating physicians," but Rule 26(a)(2)(C) "has a specific requirement for disclosures regarding treating physicians . . ." Davis v. Green, No. 1:12cv3549-WSD, 2015 WL 3505665, *4 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 2015). 1. Dr. Kotecha
"The initial requirements of Rule 26 are fundamental to the orderly, efficient, cost-effective and fair litigation of civil cases and the Rule 37(c)(1) remedies are directed at sanctioning a litigant for failing to provide or supplement the most basic information necessary to efficiently and fairly litigate a dispute." Davis v. Green, No. 1:12-CV-3549-WSD, 2015 WL 3505665, at *2 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 2015). Indeed:
To satisfy the Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosure obligation, the expert witness should do more than merely produce records. See, e.g., Davis v. Green, No. 1:12-CV-3549-WSD, 2015 WL 3505665, at *4 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 2015) (finding that a "personal injury narrative" report that was signed by the physicians did not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C)); Jones v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 12-20322-CIV, 2013 WL 8695361, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2013) (finding that the plaintiff's production of his medical records did not mean that the plaintiff complied with Rule 26(a)(2)(C)); Kondragunta v. Ace Doran Hauling & Rigging Co., No. 1:11-CV-01094-JEC, 2013 WL 1189493, at *6 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 21, 2013) (same). B. Expert Testimony by Treating Physicians