Reported / Citable
Background
Marco Granillo alleged that he was injured in a January 2025 vehicle collision caused by Prokopev, the driver of a tractor-trailer. Granillo sued Prokopev and Rovat Spedition LLC, asserting that Rovat was vicariously liable for Prokopev’s negligence and directly liable for negligent entrustment, negligence per se, negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent retention, and negligent supervision. He also sought damages that included past medical expenses.
Rovat moved for summary judgment on Granillo’s claims and separately sought dismissal of his claim for past medical expenses because he had not designated an expert to establish that those expenses were reasonable and necessary. Granillo conceded that his negligent hiring, training, and retention claims were not viable but opposed the remainder of the motion. He also requested 60 additional days to designate his treating providers as experts.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castañeda granted Granillo limited leave to designate his treating providers as expert witnesses. Applying Rule 16’s good-cause standard, the court found that Granillo’s ongoing treatment explained the late designation and that expert testimony was important because federal procedure required expert evidence to establish the reasonableness and necessity of his past medical expenses. The court declined to grant the requested 60 days, instead requiring the designations within seven days, by July 22, 2026.
The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Rovat on the negligent hiring, training, and retention claims because Granillo conceded those claims and Rovat had submitted evidence negating an employment relationship with Prokopev. The court deferred recommendations on past medical expenses, negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, negligence per se, and vicarious liability. Although Granillo’s response did not comply with the court’s standing order governing disputed facts and evidentiary citations, the court gave him a final opportunity to file a compliant surreply, after which Rovat could file a sur-surreply.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is partly an order and partly a report and recommendation: the expert-designation relief took immediate effect, while the district judge must act on the recommended partial summary judgment.
- Granillo received seven days—not the requested 60—to designate treating providers as experts supporting his past-medical-expense claim.
- The court recommended summary judgment only on negligent hiring, training, and retention and deferred the remaining summary-judgment issues pending further briefing and expert designations.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the importance of timely expert disclosures in federal personal-injury litigation, particularly when a plaintiff seeks past medical expenses. A late designation may be allowed for good cause, but the court may impose a substantially shorter extension and adjust discovery deadlines to protect the opposing party.
It also underscores that noncompliance with local summary-judgment procedures can cause proposed facts to be deemed admitted. Here, the court favored resolution on the merits and allowed a final corrective filing, but expressly warned that another failure could lead to recommendations disposing of the remaining claims.