Consumer Protection: Court strikes three improperly designated experts

Where a man alleged that movers damaged his personal property, but he failed to properly identify his restoration and furniture repair expert, his damages expert and his residential moving expert, the moving company’s motion to strike their disclosures was granted.

Background

Michael D. Mitchell alleges that Mayflower Transit LLC damaged certain

household items during Mitchell’s move. Mayflower now moves to strike Mitchell’s expert disclosures of his restoration and furniture repair expert (Kelley Weathersby), his damages expert (Crash Champions) and his residential moving expert (Shamuan Powell).

Weathersby

Mitchell’s expert disclosure for Weathersby consists entirely of Weathersby’s inspection report of Mitchell’s damaged items. While the report includes statements such as “damage appears to be new and transit related” and “economically unrepairable,” the report does not include the bases and reasons for these statements.

Nor does the report present facts or data beyond the photographs and descriptions of the items that Weathersby considered in forming her conclusions about the cause of the damage and the viability of repairs. The report is also insufficient because it merely provides the inspection findings generally and fails to specify the opinions that Weathersby will express in her expert testimony.

Weathersby’s expert disclosure also fails to include the following elements: (1) the exhibits that will be used to summarize her opinions; (2) Weathersby’s qualifications, including a list of publications authored in the previous 10 years and (3) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, Weathersby has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.

At the end of the report, Weathersby notes an inspection fee calculated from the number of items inspected, the time required on location, the time required for research on some items and the time to prepare the report. Even so, the fee does not qualify as a statement of compensation under the Rule because it does not indicate the compensation to be paid for the testimony in the case. For these reasons, Mitchell’s Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert disclosure for Weathersby fails to meet the elements required by the Rule.

Champions

Mitchell’s disclosure for Champions is an inadequate expert disclosure, because, in addition to lacking all the elements required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the report does not identify an expert witness. Mitchell lists Champions as his damages expert and fails to disclose a particular witness who will testify on the company’s behalf.

Moreover, the report itself consists of a two-page quote for the refinished gun safe that was among the items allegedly damaged by Mayflower and does not provide any of the elements required for a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert disclosure. The disclosure lacks (1) a complete statement of opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them; (2) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming their opinions; (3) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; (4) the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years; (5) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition and (6) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.

Powell

Mitchell’s disclosure for Powell consists of a report written by Powell listing descriptions of damaged items that he observed during the unloading of the items from Mayflower’s moving truck. Powell concludes from these observations that the items “were not wrapped to [his] standards.”

That said, he fails to provide a basis for this opinion. The report provides neither an explanation of the standards by which he evaluated the items nor the reasons why the manner in which the items were secured failed to meet his standards. Consequently, his observational statements are merely conclusory opinions.

Powell’s report also lacks many of the other elements required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B): (1) a complete statement of all the opinions Powell will express in his testimony; (2) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support Powell’s opinions; (3) Powell’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years; (4) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, Powell has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition and (5) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.

Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s expert witness disclosures granted.

Mitchell v. Mayflower Transit LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-308, Apr. 14, 2025. EDVA at Norfolk (Krask). VLW 025-3-166. 9 pp.