# G.M. v. Lakeview Local School District

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · September 16, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10368752

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** September 16, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10368752

## Opinion text

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
G.M., a minor, etc., et al., )
) CASE NO. 4:19CV2486
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
LAKEVIEW LOCAL SCHOOL )
DISTRICT, et al., ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
) AND ORDER
Defendants. ) [Resolving ECF Nos 24 and 34]
Pending is Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Proposed Expert Witness,
Dr. Steven Neuhaus (ECF No. 24). The Court has been advised, having reviewed the record, the
parties’ briefs, and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth in Section II below, the motion is
granted.
Also pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Correct the Record (ECF No. 34). The motion is
stricken for the reasons set forth in Section III below.
I.
On October 24, 2019, Plaintiffs Nail Majid, Amany Ahmad, and G.M. filed a Complaint
(ECF No. 1) alleging 11 claims against Defendants Lakeview Local School District, Lakeview
Local School District Board of Education, Kara Kasula (math teacher), Alex Dean (student
teacher), and Nancy Sandrella (school nurse).
(4:19CV2486)
On March 11, 2020, the Court conducted a Telephonic Case Management Conference
and subsequently entered a Case Management Plan (“CMP”) (ECF No. 15). The CMP provides,
in pertinent part:
10. Discovery, including expert discovery, shall be completed on or
before September 8, 2020.
(A) On or before July 8, 2020, the party that has the burden of proof on an
issue(s) shall identify its retained expert witness(es) and provide opposing counsel
with a written expert report(s).
(B) The party that has no burden of proof on an issue(s) shall identify its
retained expert(s), if any, and submit an opposing written report(s) to opposing
counsel on or before August 7, 2020.
A party may take a discovery deposition of its opponent’s expert witness
only after the exchange of reports has occurred. The discovery deposition of an
opponent’s expert witness shall be completed on or before September 8, 2020. If
a party chooses not to use its own expert witness, it will be permitted to take the
discovery deposition of its opponent’s expert witness only after submitting a
written statement advising the Court and opposing counsel to that effect.
* * * *
ECF No. 15 at PageID #: 103 (footnote omitted; emphasis added). The CMP also provides the
cutoff for filing dispositive motions is October 8, 2020. ECF No. 15 at PageID #: 105, 15. The
cutoffs were set in compliance with Local Rule 16.3(b)(2). Finally, the CMP provides: “The
Court will permit only the motion with its supporting memorandum, the memorandum in
opposition, and a reply. No sur-replies will be permitted absent advance leave of Court.” ECF
No. 15 at PageID #: 107.
On July 6, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Case Management
Deadlines requesting, inter alia, that Plaintiffs be allowed to identify and produce expert reports
by August 7, 2020 because the parties needed “additional time to complete depositions, provide
information to experts and secure evidence necessary for dispositive motions.” ECF No. 19 at
PageID #: 116. The Motion for Extension was denied on July 10, 2020. The Court stated it

(4:19CV2486)
would not enlarge an already-sufficient-schedule. Order (ECF No. 20) at PageID #: 119. This
was consistent with what the Court told counsel during the June 29, 2020 Telephonic Status
Conference.
Il.
Once ECF No. 19 was denied, Plaintiffs disclosed Steven M. Neuhaus, Ph.D., a clinical
and forensic psychologist, as their expert later on July 10, 2020, but did not provide a written
report to opposing counsel. ECF No. 29 at PageID #: 261. It was not until August 19, 2020 that
Plaintiffs provided copies of Dr. Neuhaus’s expert report to counsel for Defendants. See Notice
(ECF No. 31). This, however, was six weeks after Plaintiff should have provided opposing
counsel with the expert report pursuant to the CMP (ECF No. 15).
Precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds that a
failure to timely identify an expert witness and produce a report results in the automatic and
mandatory exclusion from providing expert testimony:
The remedy for the failure to file the required expert report or summary disclosure
is exclusion of the opinion testimony, unless Plaintiff can establish that the failure
was either substantially justified or harmless. Avendt, 314 F.R.D. at 559 (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), providing that if a party fails to comply with Rule 26,
“the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on
a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or
harmless.”). The Sixth Circuit has identified five factors to consider when
assessing whether a party’s omitted or late disclosure is “substantially justified” or
“harmless”: “ ‘(1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would be
offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the surprise; (3) the extent to which
allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial; (4) the importance of the evidence;
and (5) the nondisclosing party’s explanation for its failure to disclose the
evidence.’ ” Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Russell v. Abs. Collection Servs., Inc., 763 F.3d 385, 396-97 (4th Cir.
2014)). “ ‘The exclusion of non-disclosed evidence is automatic and mandatory
under Rule 37(c)(1) unless non-disclosure was justified or harmless.’ ”
Dickenson v. Cardiac & Thoracic Surgery of Eastern Tennessee, 388 F.3d 976,

(4:19CV2486)
983 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Musser v. Gentiva Health Services, 356 F.3d 751,
758 (7th Cir. 2004)). “The party requesting exclusion under Rule 37(c)(1) need
not show prejudice, rather the non-moving party must show that the exclusion was
‘harmless’ or ‘substantially justified.’ ” Saint Gobain Autover USA, Inc. y. Xinyi
Glass North America, Inc., 666 F. Supp.2d 820, 826 (N.D. Ohio 2009); see also
Roberts ex rel. Johnson v. Galen of Virginia, Inc., 325 F.3d 776, 782 (6th Cir.
2003) (quoting Vance v. United States, No. 98-5488, 1999 WL 455435, at *3 (6th
Cir. June 25, 1999)),
Dobbins v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., --- F.R.D. ----, No. 19-10546, 2020 WL 5291828, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 4, 2020) (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs attempt to satisfy their burden to show the admittedly untimely identification of
their expert and subsequent submission of a report to opposing counsel was harmless or
substantially justified by arguing (1) Defense counsel cooperated in filing the Joint Motion for
Extension of Case Management Deadlines (ECF No. 19)! and/or (2) “technological difficulties”
and “litigation-related stressors” to G.M. delayed Dr. Neuhaus’s expert report. ECF No. 29 at
PagelD #: 260-61, Defendants reply that Plaintiffs had months to retain an expert, but Dr.
Neuhaus was not retained and did not start working on this case until after July 8, 2020 — the
cutoff date for Plaintiffs’ expert to be identified and a written expert report to be provided to
opposing counsel. ECF No. 32 at PageID #: 275-76, 277; see also Invoice from Dr. Neuhaus
(ECF No. 32-1). The invoice also reveals that three of the four fact-gathering interviews that Dr.
Neuhaus conducted did not take place until after Defendants had already produced their expert
reports to opposing counsel. Plaintiffs offer no justification for why they waited months — and
until after their expert report cutoff date — to hire Dr. Neuhaus and provide him with material to

' See July 1, 2020 email exchange (ECF No. 29-1).

(4:19CV2486)
begin working on the case at bar.’ After consideration of the five factors adopted by the Sixth
Circuit in Howe, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ late disclosure of Dr. Neuhaus’s expert report is
not substantially justified or harmless. 801 F.3d at 747-48.
In addition, Local Rule 26.1 provides, in relevant part: “Discovery must be conducted
according to limitations established at the Case Management Conference and confirmed in the
Case Management Plan. Absent leave of court, the parties have no authority to modify the
limitations placed on discovery by court order.” Mantell v. Health Professionals Ltd., No.
5:11€V1034, 2013 WL 5442357, at *3-5 (N.D.Ohio Sept. 27, 2013) (Adams, J.) (citing Local
Rule 26.1 in granting defendants’ motion to strike the report and affidavit of plaintiff's expert
opinion witness offered in support of plaintiffs response to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment), aff'd, 612 Fed.Appx. 302 (6th Cir. 2015).
In Mendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1990), the Court of
Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant plaintiffs third
request for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s summary judgment motion. The court
stated:
Rules are rules—and the parties must play by them. In the final analysis, the
judicial process depends heavily on the judge’s credibility. To ensure such
credibility, a district judge must often be firm in managing crowded dockets and
demanding adherence to announced deadlines. If he or she sets a reasonable due
date, parties should not be allowed casually to flout it or painlessly to escape the
foreseeable consequences of noncompliance. Moreover, appellate courts cannot

* The Court does not address the parties’ arguments regarding prejudice to
Defendants because, as stated above in the block quote from Dobbins, “ ‘[t]he party
requesting exclusion under Rule 37(c)(1) need not show prejudice, rather the non-moving
party must show that the exclusion was ‘harmless’ or ‘substantially justified.’ ” Saint
Gobain Autover USA, Inc., 666 F. Supp.2d at 826 (Lioi, J.). If the Court were to address
this argument, it would find Plaintiffs’ untimely disclosure prejudicial to Defendants.

(4:19CV2486)
too readily agree to meddle in such case-management decisions lest the trial
court’s authority be undermined and the system sputter. Cf Higuera v. Pueblo
Int’l, Inc., 585 F.2d 555, 557 (ist Cir. 1978) (“There comes a point when the
question arises who is running the court—counsel, or the judge. To this there can
be but one answer.”)....
Id. at 7. See also Tate v. General Motors LLC, No. 4:16CV2369, slip op. at 2-3 (N.D. Ohio Nov.
1, 2017) (Pearson, J.) (citing Mendez).
Til.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Correct the Record (ECF No. 34), which cannot be viewed as
anything other than a surreply. Contrary to the CMP (ECF No. 15), ECF No. 34 was filed
without leave of Court.’
The primary purpose for allowing the moving party to serve and file a reply memorandum
in support of a motion’ is so it can respond to any new issues raised by the memorandum in
opposition. Consideration of ECF No. 34 would frustrate the purpose of allowing Defendants to
be the first and last to be heard on their pending Motion in Limine (ECF No. 24). See Bickerstaff
v. Cuyahoga Cty., No. 1:18CV1142, 2019 WL 7500494, at *6 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 12, 2019)
(Parker, M.J.) (citing Key v. Shelby Cty., 551 Fed.Appx. 262, 265 (6th Cir. 2014) (“the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly permit the filing of sur-replies”)), report &
recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 5303967 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2019) (Barker, J.); Jnre
Steinle, 835 F. Supp.2d 437, 443-44 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (Katz, J.) (same).

> And, as indicated above, the Court’s ruling excluding expert Neuhaus does not
depend on prejudice to Defendants, the apparent purpose of ECF No. 34.
* See Local Rule 7.1(e).

(4:19CV2486)
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Correct the Record (ECF No. 34) is stricken from the
file. Defendants’ Supplement to Reply Brief in Support of Motion in Limine and Response to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Correct the Record (ECF No. 35) is also stricken.
IV.
For the reasons set forth herein and those that have been articulated in the memoranda of
the points and authorities on which Defendants rely in support of the motion (ECF Nos. 24 and
32), Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Proposed Expert Witness, Dr. Steven
Neuhaus (ECF No. 24) is granted. Dr. Neuhaus is precluded from testifying in the instant case or
from otherwise rendering opinions for use in dispositive or other motions. Plaintiffs are barred
from referencing, inquiring of witnesses, or otherwise trying to inform the jury about Dr.
Neuhaus’s opinions relating to the allegations in this case.
Plaintiffs Motion to Correct the Record (ECF No. 34) and Defendants’ Supplement to
Reply Brief in Support of Motion in Limine and Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Correct the
Record (ECF No. 35) are stricken from the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 16, 2020 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10368752. Public record. Not legal advice.