Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sharma v. Howard County

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 21, 2014

AMIT SHARMA, Plaintiff
v.
HOWARD COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.

Presently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's expert witness disclosure (ECF No. 50). Having carefully considered the arguments of counsel in their filings with regard to this motion (ECF Nos. 50, 54, and 58), the motion is DENIED. Further, upon reconsideration, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (ECF No.49) is GRANTED and the Court's prior order (ECF No. 52) is VACATED.

The issue now before the Court stems from Plaintiff's disclosure of Stephen Windsor as a computer expert on March 24, 2014. (ECF No. 50-6.) While Plaintiff appears to have initially identified Mr. Windsor as a case-in-chief expert ( see ECF No. 50 at 1), he now concedes that "Mr. Windsor's designation should be solely for rebuttal purposes." (ECF No. 54 at 1.) In light of this concession, the Court finds that Plaintiff's disclosure of Mr. Windsor, as a rebuttal expert, was timely. Further, having noted Defendants' argument that the disclosure lacks the essential content required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) ( see ECF Nos. 50 at 49, 51-52 and 58 at 2), the Court nonetheless concludes that striking Plaintiff's rebuttal expert witness disclosure is not justified. The Court emphasizes, however, that should Mr. Windsor testify at trial, it will be as a rebuttal expert and his testimony shall therefore be limited in scope not only by the content of his expert testimony disclosure but also by the testimony of Defendants' expert witnesses.

Further, in light of this ruling, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (ECF No.49) to the limited extent that Defendant shall have until June 4, 2014 to file his Rule 26(e)(2) supplemental disclosure with regard to Mr. Windsor. However, in granting Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 49), the Court is not granting Plaintiff additional time to examine Defendants' computer systems and hardware. Plaintiff has been dilatory in responding to the redaction protocol for the inspection of electronic data that Defendants proposed months ago, in the fall of 2013. Despite three extensions granted by the Court (ECF Nos. 35, 41, and 47), the discovery deadline has now passed and with it the timeframe for Mr. Windsor's examination of Defendants' computer systems and hardware.[1]


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.