Jane Doe, et al. v. Col. Jeffrey Glover, et al.

D. Arizona

Jane Doe, et al. v. Col. Jeffrey Glover, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided June 5, 2026·No. 2:24-cv-02259·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 Jane Doe, et al., No. CV-24-02259-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Col. Jeffrey Glover, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The parties filed a Joint Discovery Dispute Motion concerning Plaintiffs’ belated 16 disclosure of an expert report authored by Dr. Kristin Zgoba. (Doc. 262.) 17 I. 18 The Scheduling Order, as amended, requires the parties to make expert disclosures 19 pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(A) no later than January 9, 2026. (Doc. 206.) If a party fails to 20 timely make an expert disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B), “the party is not allowed to 21 use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, 22 unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” F. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 23 II. 24 On August 19, 2025, Plaintiffs timely disclosed an expert report authored by Dr. 25 Zgoba and dated October 19, 2024. (Docs. 262, 262-3.) Plaintiffs produced a new expert 26 report, authored by Dr. Zgoba, to Defendants on May 19, 2026. This happened more than 27 four months after the deadline to do so under the Court’s Scheduling Order. The report is 28 a completely new opinion concerning “an independent examination of the effects of SB 1 1404 on registrants in Arizona” and “based on in-depth interviews with 11 Arizona 2 registrants affected by SB 1404.” (Doc. 262-2 at 4.) 3 According to Plaintiffs, the delayed disclosure was due to Dr. Zogba’s prolonged 4 conducting of an independent study that would serve as the basis for the report. (Doc. 262 5 at 4-5.) But that justification does not explain why Plaintiffs did not request an extension 6 of the deadline that they flouted. Dr. Zogba began working on her study in May 2025, 7 providing Plaintiffs with ample time to foresee that the length of the study would require 8 extending the deadline. Only now do Plaintiffs offer to, “if needed and after a 9 meet-and-confer, . . . request that the deadline for fact discovery and expert depositions, as 10 well as the deadline for expert reports, be extended.” (Doc. 262 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ belated 11 offer to seek an extension only after being forced to litigate a discovery motion underscores 12 their lack of diligence in managing the deadlines in this case. The Court therefore finds that 13 substantial justification does not exist to disregard Plaintiffs’ tardiness in disclosing the 14 expert report or otherwise requesting modifications to the deadlines imposed by the 15 Scheduling Order. 16 The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ failure to timely disclose the expert report is not 17 harmless. Plaintiffs argue “there is no evidence that Defendants were prejudiced.” (Id. at 18 5.) Plaintiffs maintain this contention despite disclosing Dr. Zgoba’s report less than two 19 days before Defendants were scheduled to depose her. (Doc. 253.) Plaintiffs’ late 20 disclosure deprived Defendants of an adequate opportunity to prepare. While Plaintiffs 21 offer to ameliorate this prejudice by rearranging the timetable set by this Court, 22 “[d]isruption to the schedule of the court and other parties . . . is not harmless.” Wong v. 23 Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005). That is why the Court’s 24 Scheduling Order advises the parties that “[t]he Court will . . . enforce the deadlines set 25 forth in this Order, and the parties should plan their litigation activities accordingly.” 26 (Doc. 181 ¶ 13.) Specifically with respect to the disclosure of expert reports, the 27 Scheduling Order states that “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, parties will not be 28 permitted to supplement expert reports after” the disclosure deadlines set by the Court. 1 || (Doc. 181 § 4.) Plaintiffs’ noncompliance with the Scheduling Order is not harmless. 2 The Court will grant the Joint Discovery Dispute Motion as to Defendants and bar || Plaintiffs reliance on the opinions expressed in the late expert report (Doc. 262-2). 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Discovery Dispute Motion || (Doc. 262) is GRANTED as to Defendants. Plaintiffs may not rely on, in any motion, at 6 || any hearing, or at trial, any untimely opinions expressed by Dr. Zgoba in her report dated 7|| May 15, 2026 (Doc. 262-2). 8 Dated this 4th day of June, 2026. 9

Michael T. Liburdi 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 Jane Doe, et al., No. CV-24-02259-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Col. Jeffrey Glover, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The parties filed a Joint Discovery Dispute Motion concerning Plaintiffs’ belated 16 disclosure of an expert report authored by Dr. Kristin Zgoba. (Doc. 262.) 17 I. 18 The Scheduling Order, as amended, requires the parties to make expert disclosures 19 pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(A) no later than January 9, 2026. (Doc. 206.) If a party fails to 20 timely make an expert disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B), “the party is not allowed to 21 use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, 22 unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” F. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 23 II. 24 On August 19, 2025, Plaintiffs timely disclosed an expert report authored by Dr. 25 Zgoba and dated October 19, 2024. (Docs. 262, 262-3.) Plaintiffs produced a new expert 26 report, authored by Dr. Zgoba, to Defendants on May 19, 2026. This happened more than 27 four months after the deadline to do so under the Court’s Scheduling Order. The report is 28 a completely new opinion concerning “an independent examination of the effects of SB 1 1404 on registrants in Arizona” and “based on in-depth interviews with 11 Arizona 2 registrants affected by SB 1404.” (Doc. 262-2 at 4.) 3 According to Plaintiffs, the delayed disclosure was due to Dr. Zogba’s prolonged 4 conducting of an independent study that would serve as the basis for the report. (Doc. 262 5 at 4-5.) But that justification does not explain why Plaintiffs did not request an extension 6 of the deadline that they flouted. Dr. Zogba began working on her study in May 2025, 7 providing Plaintiffs with ample time to foresee that the length of the study would require 8 extending the deadline. Only now do Plaintiffs offer to, “if needed and after a 9 meet-and-confer, . . . request that the deadline for fact discovery and expert depositions, as 10 well as the deadline for expert reports, be extended.” (Doc. 262 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ belated 11 offer to seek an extension only after being forced to litigate a discovery motion underscores 12 their lack of diligence in managing the deadlines in this case. The Court therefore finds that 13 substantial justification does not exist to disregard Plaintiffs’ tardiness in disclosing the 14 expert report or otherwise requesting modifications to the deadlines imposed by the 15 Scheduling Order. 16 The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ failure to timely disclose the expert report is not 17 harmless. Plaintiffs argue “there is no evidence that Defendants were prejudiced.” (Id. at 18 5.) Plaintiffs maintain this contention despite disclosing Dr. Zgoba’s report less than two 19 days before Defendants were scheduled to depose her. (Doc. 253.) Plaintiffs’ late 20 disclosure deprived Defendants of an adequate opportunity to prepare. While Plaintiffs 21 offer to ameliorate this prejudice by rearranging the timetable set by this Court, 22 “[d]isruption to the schedule of the court and other parties . . . is not harmless.” Wong v. 23 Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005). That is why the Court’s 24 Scheduling Order advises the parties that “[t]he Court will . . . enforce the deadlines set 25 forth in this Order, and the parties should plan their litigation activities accordingly.” 26 (Doc. 181 ¶ 13.) Specifically with respect to the disclosure of expert reports, the 27 Scheduling Order states that “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, parties will not be 28 permitted to supplement expert reports after” the disclosure deadlines set by the Court. 1 || (Doc. 181 § 4.) Plaintiffs’ noncompliance with the Scheduling Order is not harmless. 2 The Court will grant the Joint Discovery Dispute Motion as to Defendants and bar || Plaintiffs reliance on the opinions expressed in the late expert report (Doc. 262-2). 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Discovery Dispute Motion || (Doc. 262) is GRANTED as to Defendants. Plaintiffs may not rely on, in any motion, at 6 || any hearing, or at trial, any untimely opinions expressed by Dr. Zgoba in her report dated 7|| May 15, 2026 (Doc. 262-2). 8 Dated this 4th day of June, 2026. 9

Michael T. Liburdi 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-

Jane Doe, et al. v. Col. Jeffrey Glover, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Jane Doe, et al. v. Col. Jeffrey Glover, et al. (Jane Doe, et al. v. Col. Jeffrey Glover, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related