Reported / Citable
Background
Neil P. Blunt moved after the April 28, 2026 expert-designation deadline for permission to make expert disclosures and designate Bob Tucker as a retained expert. Blunt explained only that he had inadvertently allowed the deadline to pass.
Union Pacific Railroad Company did not oppose Blunt’s designation of healthcare providers he had already disclosed as non-retained testifying experts. It opposed the new retained-expert designation, noting that it had already designated its own experts in reliance on Blunt’s failure to designate one. Union Pacific also sought leave to file a sur-reply.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho granted Blunt’s motion in part and denied it in part. Blunt may designate his previously disclosed healthcare providers as non-retained experts, but he may not make a belated retained-expert designation of Tucker. The court also struck Tucker’s untimely expert report from the record.
Applying the Fifth Circuit’s four-factor test for late expert designations, the court found every factor favored denial. Blunt’s inadvertence was an insufficient explanation; the asserted importance of Tucker’s causation testimony underscored the need to comply with the deadline; and allowing the designation would require Union Pacific to revise its expert work and incur additional expense. A continuance would not cure that prejudice. The court denied Union Pacific’s related request to file a sur-reply.
Key Takeaways
- Inadvertently missing an expert-disclosure deadline is effectively no explanation for purposes of seeking late designation.
- A party’s need for expert causation testimony does not excuse noncompliance with a court-ordered expert deadline.
- When the opposing party has already designated experts in reliance on a non-designation, the resulting cost and preparation burden can support exclusion of the late expert.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the substantial risk of missing expert-designation deadlines in the Fifth Circuit. Even testimony a party considers essential may be excluded when the party offers only inadvertence and the late disclosure would disrupt the opponent’s completed expert preparation.
The ruling also distinguishes between already disclosed treating providers, who may testify as non-retained experts, and a newly proposed retained expert whose untimely disclosure was barred.