Marquinez v. Dole Food Company Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Delaware
• Decided: May 27, 2025
• Docket: 1:12-cv-00695
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LUIS ANTONIO AGUILAR MARQUINEZ, et al, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 12-695-RGA (consolidated) DOLE FOOD COMPANY INC., et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER Whereas, the magistrate judge entered an order striking two expert witness designations 582); Whereas, Plaintiffs have objected (D.I. 595) and Defendants have responded (D.I. 612); Whereas, Plaintiffs designated two “non-retained experts” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C) (D.I. 577-1); Whereas, on the date for serving expert reports, no such reports were served for the two non-retained experts (D.I. 576 at 1-2; D.I. 579 at 1-2); Whereas, Rule 26(a)(2)(C) permits limited circumstances where a party can designate an expert but not meet the usual! requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) for designating an expert, including the requirement to serve an expert report; Whereas, I agree with the magistrate judge that Rule 26(a)(2)(C) is limited to percipient witnesses, see Downey v. Bob's Disc Furniture Holdings, 633 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2011) (expert who does not have to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) is an expert who was “actually involved in the events giving rise to the litigation”), and the two non-retained experts are not percipient witnesses; Page 1 of 2

Whereas, Plaintiffs cite Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n, 559 F.2d 894, 904-05 (3d Cir. 1977), for the proposition that I should excuse Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Rule; Whereas, Pennypack is concerned with untimely disclosure, not timely but improper disclosure that cannot be made proper, and therefore is not applicable; Now, therefore, the magistrate judge’s order (DI. 582) is AFFIRMED. Entered this AD day of May 2025.

United States OL Judge l

Page 2 of 2