Jacqueline Buckholz v. Kelso Housing Authority

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JACQUELINE BUCKHOLZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-05170-TLF Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: EXPERT WITNESS KELSO HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court based on plaintiff’s request for substitution of an expert witness. Dkt. 30. The Court directed the parties to submit their positions on the issue. Dkt. 28. The parties filed their position summaries, and the Court scheduled a discovery conference hearing. Dkt. 29, 30, 31. Having conducted the hearing, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a), (b)(4); LCR 16(b)(3), (b)(6); and LCR 7(i), on November 12, 2025, the Court orders as follows: 1. The Court grants the plaintiff’s request to substitute Katherine Bournelis as an expert witness — after the original expert witness for plaintiff, Dr. Johnson, passed away on September 28, 2025 (plaintiff learned of his death on October 27, 2025). Under Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 652-655 (9th Cir. 1992), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), plaintiff has shown good cause, and extraordinary circumstances, for the Court to amend the scheduling order (Dkt. 20). Plaintiff was diligent in notifying the defendant that the expert witness had passed away and that plaintiff would be requesting the opportunity to substitute a different expert. 2. The parties are ordered to meet-and-confer and file a proposed order. a. After they complete their meet-and-confer process the parties are ordered

to file with the Court a proposed updated scheduling order that allows plaintiff to make expert witness disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, allows the parties an opportunity to supplement discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(2)(E) relating to plaintiff’s new expert witness and any rebuttal witness, allows the defendant an opportunity to select and disclose a rebuttal expert; and gives the parties sufficient opportunity to prepare for any expert witness deposition(s). b. The expert witness discovery procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 26(b)(4), 26(e)(2), among other discovery rules, allow the attorneys to prepare for trial and be ready for cross-examination. See Fid. National

Financial, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 308 F.R.D. 649, 652-656 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (denying a late-breaking request to substitute an expert); Morel v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 259 F.R.D. 17, 20-21 (D. Puerto Rico 2009) (granting a motion to substitute a new expert for an expert witness who passed away, and stating the goal of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) is to promote full disclosure and prevent “trial by ambush”). Therefore, the parties shall file the proposed updated scheduling order on or before Wednesday, November 19, 2025. The Court orders this filing shall be inclusive — the parties shall submit one document that includes both parties’ perspectives.

If possible, the parties will endeavor to file a stipulated proposal. If the parties disagree, they shall file one document that describes the parts of the proposal about which they disagree and their respective reasons for the divergent proposal(s), and they shall identify any parts of the proposal

that are stipulated. Dated this 12th day of November, 2025. A Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge