United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
William H. Barbour, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on the Motion of Defendants to
Exclude the Expert Testimony of Andrew J. Scott. Having
considered the pleadings, the attachments thereto, as well as
supporting and opposing authorities, the Court finds the
Motion is well taken and should be granted.
Factual Background and Procedural History
of 2014, Glenn Kasper (“Kasper”) was driving his
vehicle in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. Kasper alleges
that after he briefly stopped at the Allen Swamp Road and
Pine Springs Road intersection, the driver's side window
of his vehicle was “smashed” by a Lauderdale
County deputy. Kasper further alleges that during this
incident he was: (1) never asked for his license,
registration, or proof of insurance; (2) yelled at; (3)
grabbed and pulled head-first from his vehicle by several
deputies; (4) assaulted, i.e. had his head smashed into the
pavement; and (5) tazed. See Am. Compl. ¶ 6. A
deputy then allegedly made a charge against Kasper of driving
under the influence - third offense or greater to the
dispatch officer. Id. at ¶ 6(e). According to
Kasper, the charge was based on the mistaken belief that he
was his brother, Christopher Kasper.
being transported to the Lauderdale County Detention Center,
Kasper alleges he was strip searched and his requests for a
breathalyzer test were denied. Id. at ¶ 6(h),
(i). Kasper was later charged with driving under the
influence of other substances first offense, resisting
arrest, disregard of a traffic device, and three counts of
disorderly conduct/failure to obey. Id. at ¶
6(j). All charges, with the exception of two counts of
disorderly conduct/failure to obey, were later dismissed.
Thereafter, Kasper filed suit against the Board of
Supervisors of Lauderdale County (“Board”), the
Mississippi Highway Patrol (“MHP”), and various
employees of those entities alleging, inter alia,
that they had violated his constitutional rights based on the
manner in which he was arrested and detained. During the
course of litigation, Kasper designated Andrew J. Scott
(“Scott”) as an expert in the field of police
practice and procedure. Defendants have now moved to exclude
Scott from testifying as an expert in this case.
January 13, 2017, Kasper designated Scott as an expert in the
field of police practice and procedure. See
Designation [Docket No. 40]. In his designation, Kasper
includes the following:
Scott will provide testimony regarding the police practice
and procedure, including but not limited to excessive use
[of] force, including but not limited to use of a taser,
improper police practices and procedures, wrongful  arrest,
roadblocks, and police training.
No formal reports have been prepared at this time. However,
we expect that Mr. Scott's opinion and bases thereof will
be supported by the pleadings in this action, [a]nswers to
discovery request[s], deposition testimony, and any
information revealed through the discovery process.
Id. at ¶ 1(a) and (b). Defendants have now
moved to exclude Scott from testifying on the grounds that he
was not properly designated as an expert.
regards expert witnesses, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require the following:
(A) [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) 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 ...