Reported / Citable
Background
Robert Hernandez brought this personal-injury action after a workplace accident. The court twice extended his deadline to designate experts and provide Rule 26(a)(2) reports, ultimately setting an August 7, 2026 deadline and warning that further extensions were unlikely absent extraordinary circumstances.
On the deadline, Hernandez served disclosures identifying four retained experts: a job-site safety engineer, a physician, an economist, and a life-care planner. The disclosures described anticipated testimony and qualifications but included no expert-written, signed reports stating their opinions and bases. After Structsure moved to strike, Hernandez sought a third extension, saying further depositions, documents, and evaluations were needed.
The Court’s Holding
Senior U.S. District Judge Micaela Alvarez granted Structsure’s motion to strike and denied Hernandez’s request for a continuance and further scheduling-order extension. The court held that the disclosures did not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), because retained experts must provide written and signed reports containing their opinions and supporting reasons.
Applying the Fifth Circuit’s four-factor framework, the court concluded that Hernandez’s noncompliance was neither substantially justified nor harmless under Rule 37(c)(1). The experts were not necessarily indispensable to proving the workplace-injury case; allowing them would prejudice Structsure by requiring rebuttal experts in newly disclosed fields; a continuance would not adequately address repeated delay; and Hernandez had not adequately explained why the needed discovery and reports could not have been completed within the twice-extended deadline. The court excluded the challenged experts’ opinions and testimony at trial and on dispositive motions, while permitting Dr. Missak Tchoulkain to testify only as a fact witness concerning the limited visit identified in his designation.
Key Takeaways
- A timely expert disclosure is insufficient if retained experts’ Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports are missing.
- Identifying an expert and describing anticipated testimony does not substitute for the expert’s signed report stating opinions and their bases.
- Prior extensions and an inadequate explanation for delay can support exclusion rather than another continuance under Rule 37(c)(1).
Why It Matters
The order underscores that federal scheduling deadlines for expert disclosures require both identification of retained experts and compliant reports. Parties cannot preserve expert testimony merely by providing a placeholder disclosure while expecting to supplement later.
For litigators, the decision also illustrates the importance of developing expert evidence during discovery rather than relying on a continuance to cure incomplete disclosures, particularly after the court has already extended deadlines and warned counsel to proceed diligently.