United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
FC MEYER PACKAGING, LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Company PLAINTIFF
CONVERTING ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company DEFENDANT
Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge
MATTER is before the Court on the Motion  to Strike the
Notice of Service of Designation of Experts filed by
Plaintiff FC Meyer Packaging, LLC. The Court having carefully
considered the motion, the submissions of the parties, and
the applicable law, finds that the Motion  should be
DENIED, but that both parties should supplement their expert
a Connecticut corporation, owns a carton printing and
packaging plant in Quitman, Mississippi. Defendant, a
Michigan corporation, installs and services printer and
cutter equipment. Plaintiff claims that it hired Defendant to
inspect an outdated printer/cutter machine in Minnesota to
determine whether it could be refurbished and modified for
Plaintiff's use at its Mississippi plant. Relying on
Defendant's advice, Plaintiff purchased the machine and
hired Defendant to modify and install it. Defendant was
purportedly unable to get the machine running at the rate
specified in Plaintiff's initial inspection request.
claims to have paid Defendant approximately $600, 000
throughout the course of this transaction. Additionally, it
believes that Defendant placed an electronic device on the
machine which renders it inoperable. Therefore, Plaintiff
filed this lawsuit asserting the following claims: breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose,
negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of approximately $750,
000 and an injunction barring Defendant from interfering with
the operation of the machine.
instant motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the
Defendant's expert designation as it did not include
“any written expert report which is required under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26” and that “Defendant only
list[ed]  designated individuals as experts, and [did] not
provide meaningful information whatsoever as to which of the
designated persons will opine on which subject matter or set
of facts.” See Motion  at 2. As
alternative relief, in its rebuttal, Plaintiff requests that
Defendant be required to supplement with more information.
See  at 3. In response Defendant argues that the
experts Plaintiff wishes to strike are 26(a)(2)(C) witnesses,
and are not the type of experts that require a written expert
report, just a disclosure.
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) (emphasis added) provides:
Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by
Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the
identity of any witness it may use at trial to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.
(B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report. Unless
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure
must be accompanied by a written report--prepared and signed
by the witness--if the witness is one retained or specially
employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose
duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving
expert testimony. . . .
(C) Witnesses Who Do Not Provide a Written Report. Unless
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, if the witness
is not required to provide a written report, this disclosure
(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to
present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence ...