IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
December 14, 2011
STEPHEN K. BIEBER AND KAREN BIEBER, PLAINTIFFS
DAVID J. NACE AND EASTERN INDUSTRIES, INC., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2011, upon consideration of the motion in limine (Doc. 37), filed by defendant Eastern Industries, Inc., to preclude use of any and all documents prepared by plaintiffs' experts which were not produced before the deadline for expert reports, wherein Eastern Industries asserts that at a mediation between the parties in November, plaintiffs submitted Laser Scanning Data Sheets,*fn1 produced by expert witness Steven Schorr, PE of DSJ Associates, never produced prior to November 16, 2011, and wherein Eastern Industries asserts that the deadline for production of plaintiffs' expert reports was June 17, 2011, and that such failure to comply with the expert disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)*fn2 should result in the exclusion of the Laser Scanning Data Sheets from trial because defendants would be prejudiced by their introduction,*fn3 and upon further consideration of the response thereto (Doc. 48) filed by plaintiffs ("the Biebers"), wherein the Biebers represent to the court that the laser scans have not been utilized by them, and, if their expert were to utilize the data in creating images or exhibits, the Biebers would produce them to defendants in a timely fashion to enable Eastern Industries to prepare for the use of the demonstrative evidence at trial (id. at 3), and the court noting that Eastern Industries has been provided with the laser data (see Doc. 50, Ex. C), and it appearing that the laser scans were not used by Mr. Shorr in forming his opinions, (see Doc. 50, Ex. A), and the court therefore finding no violation Rule 26(a)(2),*fn4 and the court concluding that any production of demonstrative exhibits for trial from the laser data does not fall within the bounds of Rule 26(a)(2)'s expert disclosure requirements, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion in limine (Doc. 37) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge