Expert Testimony Admitted Despite Late Disclosure of Complete Reports
Posted on October 16, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This action arises out of a car accident that took place in April 2022 in Gainesville, Georgia. At the time of the accident, Defendant Darar Kerenso was employed as a driver for HJ Trucking. Plaintiff Charlene Taylor-Thomas was sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked and turned off vehicle with a friend in the passenger seat.
Specifically, the vehicle was parked on a curb near the entrance to a gas station. Kerenso turned his trailer into the gas station parking lot and struck the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Consequently, the Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Ian Campbell and Marc Paradiso on grounds that the Defendants’ failed to properly disclose these experts and provide a timely expert report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
Biomechanics Expert Witness
Ian C. Campbell, Ph.D, P.E. is a Senior Managing Engineer at Exponent Engineering & Scientific Consulting. He received his bachelor’s degree in Physics and Mathematics from St. Olaf College and his doctorate in Biomedical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University. He is a professionally licensed engineer in the states of Georgia, Texas, and California.
Basically, Campbell conducts research in micromobility products (including electric scooters and bicycles), airbag interactions, and analyzes specific incidents resulting in an injury.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
Marc A. Paradiso, M.S., P.E. is a Senior Managing Engineer at Exponent Engineering & Scientific Consulting. He received his bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from The Georgia Institute of Technology and his master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University. He is a professionally licensed engineer in the states of Georgia, Arkansas, and New York.
Paradiso specializes in the investigation and reconstruction of on- and off-road motor vehicle accidents.
Discussion by the Court
Specifically, Plaintiff contended that the Defendants did not provide either a complete statement or written report from these experts as to the subject of their testimony until March 18, 2025, six days prior to the close of the discovery period. As a result, the Plaintiff had less than a week to review the expert reports, schedule depositions, and identify rebuttal experts.
The Defendants opposed the motion, noting that the Plaintiff did not dispute that the content of their disclosures complied with Rule 26 but took issue only with the timing of their disclosures.
They contended that they disclosed the experts’ identities along with a statement as to their backgrounds, qualifications, and expected opinions and testimony on January 21, 2025, approximately three months before discovery closed on March 24.
The Defendants acknowledged that the full expert reports were not served on the Plaintiff until March 18 but asserted that the Plaintiff informed them in February that, although she intended to depose Exponent, Inc.—Campbell and Paradiso’s employer—under Rule 30(b)(6), she did not intend to depose Campbell and Paradiso themselves. As a result, the Defendants argued, any failure to comply with Rule 26 was harmless.
Analysis
However, the Court did not find exclusion of the Defendants’ experts to be warranted under the facts presented. First, it did not appear that the Defendants actually violated Rule 26 with regard to the timing of their disclosures because both experts were identified and complete expert reports were provided to the Plaintiff prior to the close of discovery on March 24, 2025.
The Court acknowledged, however, that the Defendants’ disclosure of the complete expert report on March 18th gave the Plaintiff a tight timeline to review the report and make strategic decisions before the close of discovery on the March 24th.
Second, the Defendants have presented evidence that they provided the Plaintiff with ample opportunity to depose the experts prior to the close of discovery or even after and that the Plaintiff did not express interest in doing so.
Given the Plaintiff’s apparent decision not to pursue deposing Campbell and Paradiso themselves, and to postpone her scheduled deposition of Exponent, the Court cannot find that any violation of Rule 26 harmed the Plaintiff.
As no trial date has been set and Rule 26(a)(2)(D) gave the Plaintiff 30 days to identify a rebuttal expert once she received the complete expert report, the Court cannot find that the Plaintiff has suffered any harm from the Defendants’ alleged violation.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert reports of Ian Campbell and Marc Paradiso.
Key Takeaway:
The purpose of Rule 26 is to provide the parties ample opportunity to “prepare for effective cross examination and perhaps arrange for expert testimony from other witnesses.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Taylor-Thomas V. Darar Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:24cv817 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Georgia Northern |
| Order Date: | October 10, 2025 |
