Janelle Ramirez, et al. v. Robert D Bohm, et al.

D. Arizona

Janelle Ramirez, et al. v. Robert D Bohm, et al.

DecidedNovember 5, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01660

StatusUnknown

This text of Janelle Ramirez, et al. v. Robert D Bohm, et al. (Janelle Ramirez, et al. v. Robert D Bohm, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Janelle Ramirez, et al. v. Robert D Bohm, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Janelle Ramirez, et al., No. CV-25-01660-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Robert D Bohm, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 After this case was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court in May 2025, 16 defendants filed an answer. (Doc. 18.) The court issued a case management order in July 17 2025, and the parties are conducting discovery. (Doc. 20.) On October 30, 2025, plaintiffs 18 filed a “Motion to Qualify Dr. Arellano as Obstetrician-Gynecologist For the Purpose of 19 Expert Testimony.” (Doc. 32.) Plaintiffs explain they “seek to establish the necessary 20 qualifications of their expert witness(es) in advance as to prevent Defendants from seeking 21 to strike Plaintiffs’ expert(s) after the close of discovery.” (Doc. 32 at 4.) 22 Assuming the relevant provisions of Arizona law apply in this case, plaintiffs were 23 required to provide a “preliminary expert opinion affidavit” with their initial disclosures. 24 A.R.S. § 12-2603. Plaintiffs purportedly provided such an affidavit on August 11, 2025. 25 On October 10, 2025, defendants sent a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel claiming the preliminary 26 expert affidavit was “deficient” pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603 and A.R.S. § 12-2604, the 27 latter being the statute that provides the standard for expert testimony at trial. (Doc. 32-1 28 at 17.) Defendants demanded plaintiffs “serve a proper affidavit . . . by October 24, 2025” 1 or defendants would be “filing an appropriate Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 32-1 at 19.) The 2 parties exchanged additional correspondence, but defendants did not file a motion. Instead, 3 on October 30, 2025, plaintiffs filed their motion that requests the court accept their 4 proposed expert as qualified under Arizona law. 5 Plaintiffs’ motion does not cite the procedural basis for the relief they seek. The 6 statute regarding preliminary expert opinion affidavits provides “[t]he court, on its own 7 motion or the motion of the health care professional . . . shall dismiss the claim against the 8 health care professional” if a plaintiff “fails to file and serve a preliminary expert opinion 9 affidavit.” A.R.S. § 12-2603(F). That statute makes no mention of a plaintiff seeking a 10 preliminary ruling regarding the adequacy of a preliminary expert affidavit. Similarly, 11 A.R.S. § 12-2604(A) identifies when “a person shall not give expert testimony on the 12 appropriate standard of practice or care,” but it does not mention a procedure for a plaintiff 13 to obtain an early indication that the chosen expert is sufficient. Disputes involving A.R.S. 14 § 12-2604(A) typically arise at summary judgment or trial. See, e.g., Rasor v. Nw. Hosp., 15 LLC, 403 P.3d 572, 577 (Ariz. 2017). Plaintiffs have not explained why it is necessary for 16 the court to resolve the qualifications of their expert now. 17 Trial courts are not required to issue early evidentiary rulings of the sort plaintiffs 18 seek. Cf. United States v. Browne, 829 F.2d 760, 762 (9th Cir. 1987) (trial courts have 19 discretion to issue advance evidentiary rulings but they are not required to do so). Many 20 courts have refused to opine on the admissibility of expert testimony at early stages of a 21 case. See Pipkin v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R. Co., No. C04-5591RJB, 2005 WL 22 5977657, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2005) (declining to exclude defense expert at an 23 “early juncture” because “[t]he issue raised in the plaintiffs’ motion is an evidentiary one 24 that should be resolved on a date closer to trial”); In re Flint Water Cases, No. 25 516CV10444JELEAS, 2024 WL 890546, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 1, 2024) (collecting cases 26 denying as premature motions to disqualify experts filed before or even shortly after 27 dispositive motions are filed). In this case, disputes regarding expert qualifications must be 28 presented through the usual method of a party filing a motion seeking to exclude the 1 || opposing side’s expert. Such motions are only permitted at an appropriate time, i.e., at 2 || summary judgment (and only then where granting or denying such a motion is critical to || resolution of the summary judgment motion), or shortly before trial. The court need not, and will not, wade into the admissibility of expert testimony when there is no present need to do so. 6 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Qualify (Doc. 32) is DENIED. 7 Dated this 5th day of November, 2025. 8

10 WARM MAA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 11 United States District Judge 12 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 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Janelle Ramirez, et al., No. CV-25-01660-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Robert D Bohm, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 After this case was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court in May 2025, 16 defendants filed an answer. (Doc. 18.) The court issued a case management order in July 17 2025, and the parties are conducting discovery. (Doc. 20.) On October 30, 2025, plaintiffs 18 filed a “Motion to Qualify Dr. Arellano as Obstetrician-Gynecologist For the Purpose of 19 Expert Testimony.” (Doc. 32.) Plaintiffs explain they “seek to establish the necessary 20 qualifications of their expert witness(es) in advance as to prevent Defendants from seeking 21 to strike Plaintiffs’ expert(s) after the close of discovery.” (Doc. 32 at 4.) 22 Assuming the relevant provisions of Arizona law apply in this case, plaintiffs were 23 required to provide a “preliminary expert opinion affidavit” with their initial disclosures. 24 A.R.S. § 12-2603. Plaintiffs purportedly provided such an affidavit on August 11, 2025. 25 On October 10, 2025, defendants sent a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel claiming the preliminary 26 expert affidavit was “deficient” pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603 and A.R.S. § 12-2604, the 27 latter being the statute that provides the standard for expert testimony at trial. (Doc. 32-1 28 at 17.) Defendants demanded plaintiffs “serve a proper affidavit . . . by October 24, 2025” 1 or defendants would be “filing an appropriate Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 32-1 at 19.) The 2 parties exchanged additional correspondence, but defendants did not file a motion. Instead, 3 on October 30, 2025, plaintiffs filed their motion that requests the court accept their 4 proposed expert as qualified under Arizona law. 5 Plaintiffs’ motion does not cite the procedural basis for the relief they seek. The 6 statute regarding preliminary expert opinion affidavits provides “[t]he court, on its own 7 motion or the motion of the health care professional . . . shall dismiss the claim against the 8 health care professional” if a plaintiff “fails to file and serve a preliminary expert opinion 9 affidavit.” A.R.S. § 12-2603(F). That statute makes no mention of a plaintiff seeking a 10 preliminary ruling regarding the adequacy of a preliminary expert affidavit. Similarly, 11 A.R.S. § 12-2604(A) identifies when “a person shall not give expert testimony on the 12 appropriate standard of practice or care,” but it does not mention a procedure for a plaintiff 13 to obtain an early indication that the chosen expert is sufficient. Disputes involving A.R.S. 14 § 12-2604(A) typically arise at summary judgment or trial. See, e.g., Rasor v. Nw. Hosp., 15 LLC, 403 P.3d 572, 577 (Ariz. 2017). Plaintiffs have not explained why it is necessary for 16 the court to resolve the qualifications of their expert now. 17 Trial courts are not required to issue early evidentiary rulings of the sort plaintiffs 18 seek. Cf. United States v. Browne, 829 F.2d 760, 762 (9th Cir. 1987) (trial courts have 19 discretion to issue advance evidentiary rulings but they are not required to do so). Many 20 courts have refused to opine on the admissibility of expert testimony at early stages of a 21 case. See Pipkin v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R. Co., No. C04-5591RJB, 2005 WL 22 5977657, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2005) (declining to exclude defense expert at an 23 “early juncture” because “[t]he issue raised in the plaintiffs’ motion is an evidentiary one 24 that should be resolved on a date closer to trial”); In re Flint Water Cases, No. 25 516CV10444JELEAS, 2024 WL 890546, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 1, 2024) (collecting cases 26 denying as premature motions to disqualify experts filed before or even shortly after 27 dispositive motions are filed). In this case, disputes regarding expert qualifications must be 28 presented through the usual method of a party filing a motion seeking to exclude the 1 || opposing side’s expert. Such motions are only permitted at an appropriate time, i.e., at 2 || summary judgment (and only then where granting or denying such a motion is critical to || resolution of the summary judgment motion), or shortly before trial. The court need not, and will not, wade into the admissibility of expert testimony when there is no present need to do so. 6 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Qualify (Doc. 32) is DENIED. 7 Dated this 5th day of November, 2025. 8

10 WARM MAA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Janelle Ramirez, et al. v. Robert D Bohm, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janelle-ramirez-et-al-v-robert-d-bohm-et-al-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack