Motion to Strike Experts: Plaintiff’s Lawyer Motion to Preclude Experts

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY , MARYLAND

JANE DOE – Plaintiff
v.
SUZIE SMITH – Defendant.

CASE NO.: 01-C-02-1351

MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS

Plaintiff, Jane Doe, by and through her attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Laura G. Zois, and Miller & Zois, LLC, requests that this Court preclude testimony from Defendant’s experts because they have not provided disclosure of their opinions as required by Maryland Rule 2-402(f)(1)(a). In further support, Plaintiff states as follows:

During the course of discovery, the parties have actively engaged in discovery by way of depositions, interrogatories, request for production of documents, and requests for admissions. Plaintiff propounded the following request for the production of documents:

1. All written reports of each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial.
2. All documents upon which any expert witness you intend to call at trial relied upon to form an opinion.
3. The most recent resume or curriculum vitae of each expert whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial.
4. All notes, diagrams, photographs, x-rays or other documents prepared or reviewed by each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial.

Plaintiff has not received any of the documents requested in her requests for production of documents. On the day the Defendant’s designation of experts deadline, defense counsel by correspondence designated Dr. Joe Smith, M.D., and Dr. Mary Smith, M.D. See Exhibit A.

The proffered “opinions” of the Defendant’s experts are stated as follows: “It is anticipated that both experts will testify that it cannot be said to a reasonable degree of medical probability that the Plaintiff’s medical condition was proximately caused by the accident in question.” Id . Defendant’s experts never disclosed that their opinions would include anything beyond the extent of the above statement. No peer review report was provided or any basis of support for their conclusions.

Maryland Rule 2-504(b)(1)(B) requires a Scheduling Order to include one or more dates by which each party shall identify each person it intends to call as an expert witness at trial. By this very rule, the party’s designation must contain the information required by Md. Rule 2-402(f)(1) including: the identity of the witness, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, a summary of the grounds of the expert’s opinion, as well as a copy of any report prepared by the expert concerning his or her opinions and findings. In this case, Defendant’s deadline to comply with this Maryland Rule was on July 23, 2010

Although the Defendant has identified the subject matter upon which its experts intend to testify, Defendant has not provided a summary of the grounds of their expert opinion, nor has it attached a copy of any report prepared by her experts concerning their opinions and findings. Even worse, Defendant’s designation is lacking any mention of what the expert opinions actually are. As such, Defendant has failed to disclose its expert in compliance with the Maryland Rules and the Scheduling Order issued in this case and their expert opinions should be precluded.

Respectfully submitted,
Miller & Zois, LLC

Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Laura G. Zois
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410)779-4600
(410)760-8922 (Fax)
Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant’s Experts was sent via U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, this 17 th day of March, 2004, to:

Steve Smith, Esquire
123 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 401
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Attorney for Defendant
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY , MARYLAND

JANE DOE – Plaintiff
v.
SUZIE SMITH – Defendant.

CASE NO.: 01-C-02-1351

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant’s Experts; it is this _________ day of _____________, 20010, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County , Maryland , hereby

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant be precluded from introducing any expert testimony.

JUDGE

COPIES TO:

Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Esq.
Laura G. Zois, Esq.
Miller & Zois, LLC
Baltimore, MD 21202

Steve Smith, Esquire
123 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 401
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Attorney for Defendant

• More Sample Motions in Limine
• Motion to Strike Defendant’s Late Expert Designation