Law Enforcement Expert Was Barred From Testifying Because His Report Was Not Produced on Time

Plaintiff Tonya Armstead Miller brought five claims on behalf of herself and the estate of Roderick Marcell Inge relating to the fatal shooting of Mr. Inge. 

Specifically, Miller alleged that Defendant Chief Brent Blankley “maintained a system of grossly inadequate training” that caused officers to violate Inge’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (“Count One”); that Defendant Officers John Beasley and Elijah Rodriguez unlawfully seized Inge by shooting and killing him in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (“Counts Two and Three”); and that Officers Beasley and Rodriguez negligently caused the death of Inge in violation of Alabama law. 

Defendants filed a motion to strike the report and affidavit of Plaintiff’s expert Daniel Busken.

Law Enforcement Expert Witness

Daniel Busken served as a municipal police officer for 35 years including 25 years as a chief of police. This service included responsibility for development of and compliance with progressive law enforcement policies and procedures. Chief Busken served on the Board of Directors for the Texas Police Chiefs Recognition Program. This program sets the standards for progressive and professional law enforcement practices throughout the State of Texas.

He earned his BS in Business and Economics from Culver-Stockton College, his MPA from Saint Louis University, and his MBA in Criminal Justice from Northcentral University. 

Want to know more about the challenges Daniel Busken has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

Discussion by the Court

Defendants contended (1) Miller did not timely produce the report to them, and (2) it is not in the appropriate form. 

The Court ordered Miller to disclose any experts and their reports by April 29, 2024. No extensions of any deadlines affected this deadline. The parties agreed that Miller did not provide any notice that Busken had been retained as an expert witness for Miller until May 3, 2025 and did not produce Busken’s report until she responded to the motion for summary judgment on October 24, 2024.  The notice provided on May 3, 2025 identified Busken and provided his curriculum vitae, but it did not include his expert report, his affidavit, or any of the conclusions he drew in his report. 

Miller did not argue that her failure to comply with the deadline set by the Court’s order was harmless or substantially justified. Instead, she argued that Defendants did not object to her late notice of Busken or seek to depose him.

But Defendants’ failure to object or seek to depose Busken did not make Miller’s non-compliance with the deadline harmless or substantially justified. To the contrary, her late disclosure prejudiced Defendants by denying them access to the substance of his opinion until after they had already moved for summary judgment.

Held

The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to strike Daniel Busken’s report and affidavit.

Key Takeaway:

A party’s failure to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) precludes the party from using “that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion unless that failure was substantially justified or harmless.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Miller V. Burton
Docket Number:	7:23cv436
Court Name:	United States District Court, Alabama Northern
Order Date:	September 09, 2025