Maya Baba as administratrix of the estate of Ghassan Radwan Baba v. Sheriff Jeff Crisco et al

• Court: District Court, M.D. North Carolina
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00923
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA MAYA BABA as administratrix of the estate of GHASSAN RADWAN BABA,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:24CV923

SHERIFF JEFF CRISCO et al,

Defendants.

ORDER, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case rises out of an incident in These two groups are represented by which a law enforcement officer different counsel. This Order and allegedly shot and killed Ghassan Recommendation will refer to the Radwan Baba, the brother of plaintiff latter, collectively, as “Highway Maya Baba. Docket Entry 1 ¶¶ 8, 20– Patrol.” 38. Baba sued, claiming excessive The case is now before the Court on force and failure to properly train Highway Patrol’s motion to strike under the U.S. Constitution, Baba’s expert report, Docket Entry 31, negligence, gross negligence, and Highway Patrol’s motion for an wrongful death, and intentional extension of time to respond to infliction of emotional distress under discovery requests, Docket Entry 36. North Carolina tort law, and Baba’s response to the latter motion is deprivation of life outside the law of not due until March 17, 2026. the land under the North Carolina However, given the time-sensitive constitution. Id. ¶¶ 39–95. nature of Highway Patrol’s extension Baba has sued two groups of request and the close relationship defendants: those connected to the between this motion and the fully sheriff’s office (Sheriff Jeff Crisco, briefed motion to strike, “the Court Deputy Josiah Garret, and Cincinnati deems it appropriate to rule upon the Insurance Company) and those motion without awaiting a response.” connected to the North Carolina State Wood v. Wade, No. 5:14-CT-3271-FL, Highway Patrol (the Highway Patrol 2016 WL 2637822, at *1 (E.D.N.C. and Officer Michael McCormick). Id. May 6, 2016); see also Wheel Recovery Sys., LLC v. Nichols, No. report on January 21, 2026. See 3:22-CV-342-DCLC-DCP, 2022 WL Docket Entry 32-8. 19076611, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 2, II. MOTION TO STRIKE 2022) (“[G]iven that the motion is time sensitive, the Court will Highway Patrol seeks to exclude adjudicate it prior to it becoming Baba’s expert testimony. Docket ripe.”). Entry 31. The undersigned recommends that the Court deny The Court grants the motion for an Highway Patrol’s motion. extension of time. Additionally, the undersigned recommends that the A. Baba’s Disclosure Was Court deny the motion to strike Baba’s Deficient. expert report. In accordance with this Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) recommendation, the Court extends requires that expert disclosures “be the defendants’ expert disclosure accompanied by a written report . . . deadline to February 21, 2026 and the prepared and signed by the witness.” close of discovery to March 25, 2026. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). The rule I. BACKGROUND further requires that the report contain: Baba’s official deadline for disclosure of expert reports was October 15, (1) A “complete statement of all 2025, and the defendants’ deadline opinions the witness will was November 17, 2025. Text Order, express and the basis and 07/17/2025. However, the parties reasons for them;” made an informal agreement extending Baba’s expert report (2) The “facts or data disclosure deadline to January 12, considered by the witness in 2026 and that of the defendants to forming them;” February 12, 2026. Docket Entry 32-3 at 1–2. The informal deadlines did (3) Any “exhibits that will be not conflict with the official close of used to summarize or discovery on March 16, 2026. See Text support them;” Order, 07/17/2025. (4) The “witness’s On January 16, 2026—four days past qualifications, including a Baba’s informal expert report list of all publications disclosure deadline—Baba’s attorney authored in the previous 10 emailed the defendants’ attorneys years;” asking to be allowed until January 21,

2026 to serve Baba’s expert report. (5) A “list of all other cases in Docket Entry 32-6 at 2. The sheriff’s which, during the previous 4 attorney agreed, but Highway Patrol’s years, the witness testified attorney did not. Docket Entry 32-6 at as an expert at trial or by 1–2. Baba’s attorney served the expert deposition; and” Baba produced it several months past (6) A “statement of the the court-mandated deadline and compensation to be paid for nine days past the parties’ agreed- the study and testimony in upon deadline. the case.” B. The Deficiencies Were Id. Additionally, a “party must make Harmless. these disclosures at the times and in If a party “fails to provide information the sequence that the court orders.” or identify a witness as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D). Rule 26(a),” then “the party is not Here, Baba provided an expert report allowed to use that information or for Julia C. de la Garza-Jordan, M.D., witness . . . unless the failure was on January 21, 2026. Docket Entry substantially justified or is harmless.” 32-8. It states that Dr. de la Garza- Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). “[I]n Jordan plans to testify that the exercising its broad discretion to medical examiner’s autopsy and determine whether a nondisclosure of investigation following Ghassan evidence is substantially justified or Baba’s death did not follow industry harmless for purposes of a Rule standards and that the evidence does 37(c)(1) exclusion analysis, a district not follow the pattern expected with a court should be guided by the self-inflicted wound. Id. at 1–2. The following factors:” report lists the opinions Dr. de la (1) “the surprise to the party Garza-Jordan will express and the against whom the evidence basis and reasons for them, id. at 1–3, would be offered;” the facts or data considered by Dr. de

la Garza-Jordan, id. at 3, any exhibits (2) “the ability of that party to that will be used, id., Dr. de la Garza- cure the surprise;” Jordan’s qualifications, including a

list of all publications authored in the (3) “the extent to which previous 10 years, id. at 6–14, and a allowing the evidence would statement of the compensation paid disrupt the trial;” to Dr. de la Garza-Jordan, id. at 3–4.

However, the report suffered from (4) “the importance of the three deficiencies: (1) it was not evidence; and” signed by Dr. de la Garza-Jordan, (2) it did not list the cases in which Dr. de la Garza-Jordan has testified as an expert in the past four years,1 and (3)

1 The report does, however, promise to eventually provide these. Docket Entry 32-8 at 3. (5) “the nondisclosing party’s Entry 12 ¶ 32, making Dr. de la Garza- explanation for its failure to Jordan’s contrary testimony disclose the evidence.” important. And surprise and trial disruption are not serious concerns. S. States Rack And Fixture, Inc. v. The disclosure occurred roughly eight Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, months before trial,3 two months 597 (4th Cir. 2003); accord before the discovery ended, three Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nexus weeks before the defendants’ informal Servs., Inc., 156 F.4th 443, 457 (4th expert disclosure deadline, and only Cir. 2025); see also White v. City of nine days after Baba’s informal Greensboro, 532 F. Supp. 3d 277, 300 deadline. To the extent that those nine (M.D.N.C. 2021) (declining to exclude days prejudice the defendants, that expert testimony because a “failure to prejudice can be cured by the less provide a written report, while severe remedy of giving the unjustified, may be harmless and defendants an additional nine days to subject to cure”), reconsidered on produce their expert reports and other grounds, 586 F. Supp. 3d 466 complete overall discovery. (M.D.N.C. 2022). C. Highway Patrol’s Other Under these factors the deficiencies Arguments Fail. are harmless. Only the fifth factor— the nondisclosing party’s Highway Patrol argues that the explanation—weighs in favor of deficiencies are harmful because they sanctions. The “explanation” prevented Highway Patrol from subsection of Baba’s response brief deposing Dr. de la Garza-Jordan. See discusses the fluidity of the parties’ Docket Entry 32 at 7–8; Docket Entry informal agreement, the lack of bad 35 at 4. Highway Patrol’s reasoning is faith, the curability of the defects, and that the lack of signature means that the disproportionality of exclusion as Baba’s attorney, rather than Dr. de la a sanction, but never provides a Garza-Jordan herself, prepared the concrete reason for the deficiencies.2 expert disclosure, preventing it from See Docket Entry 33 at 10–12. being a true “report” under Rule 26(a)(2)(B). A party may depose an But the remaining factors weigh expert “only after the [Rule strongly in Baba’s favor. The 26(a)(2)(B)] report is provided.” Fed. defendants’ Answers allege that R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A). Ghassan Baba died of a self-inflicted wound, Docket Entry 10 ¶ 32; Docket

2 In the parties’ emails, Baba’s counsel deficiencies, see Docket Entry 33 at 10– blamed the one-day Verizon outage for 12. the delay, see Docket Entry 32-6 at 1–2, but the response brief does not invoke 3 The Court has tentatively scheduled a this as an explanation for the jury trial for October 5, 2026. Docket Entry 27. This argument is not persuasive. The deadline to February 21, 2026 and the report is narrated from Dr. de la close of discovery to March 25, 2026, Garza-Jordan’s point of view. See to cure any prejudice to defendants generally Docket Entry 32-8. Further, caused by Baba’s late expert Highway Patrol does not allege that it disclosure. attempted to depose Dr. de la Garza- III. MOTION FOR AN Jordan and could not do so due to a EXTENSION lack of report. Had Highway Patrol determined that the deficiencies Highway Patrol has also moved for an precluded deposing Dr. de la Garza- extension to respond to Baba’s Jordan, it could have filed a motion to discovery requests. Docket Entry 36. compel Baba to cure those A party must respond to discovery deficiencies. requests within thirty days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) (interrogatories); Highway Patrol did not do so, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A)(requests suggesting its intent to strike for production). To extend this important evidence rather than cure deadline, a party must show good procedural harm. See Sullivan v. cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Glock, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 497, 506 (D. Md. 1997) (describing the decision of Here, Baba served its requests for whether to file a motion to compel production on January 29, 2026; the versus a motion to exclude as a defendants’ response deadline was “tactical” one that hinges on whether thus February 28, 2026. But as the movant believes it is more previously discussed, Baba also important to avoid surprise or prevent served its expert disclosure nine days the expert from testifying). past the parties’ informal deadline, potentially impeding the defendants’ Highway Patrol also argues that preparation. The Court therefore sanctions are appropriate under Rule grants the motion and extends the 37(b) for failure to comply with a defendants’ response deadline to court order. Docket Entry 32 at 10–12. March 13, 2026. This argument is a nonstarter. All parties in this case agreed not to IV. CONCLUSION comply with the Court’s expert IT IS ORDERED that the disclosure deadlines, and a failure to defendants shall have until March 13, adhere to an informal deadline does 2026 to respond to Baba’s discovery not trigger the draconian remedies of requests served January 29, 2026. Rule 37(b).

Accordingly, it is recommended that IT IS RECOMMENDED that the the Court deny Highway Patrol’s Court DENY Highway Patrol’s motion to strike Baba’s expert motion to strike Baba’s expert report. disclosure. In accordance with this In accordance with this recommendation, the Court extends recommendation, the Court the defendants’ expert disclosure EXTENDS the defendants’ expert reports deadline to February 21, 2026 and the close of discovery to March 25, 20206.

J if Gibson McFadden United States Magistrate Judge March 13, 2026 Durham, North Carolina