Psychiatry Expert Witness’ Rebuttal Testimony Admitted Despite Claims of Untimely Disclosure
Posted on December 16, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Rebecca Leeper filed a Complaint for Damages against the Defendants, the City of Tacoma and Tel Thompson. The case arose from injuries she sustained in a sexual assault on July 17, 2018. In her Complaint, Leeper alleged that the City had prior knowledge of Thompson’s dangerous conduct, including a documented history of confrontational behavior and inappropriate sexualized conduct while working in his Tacoma Police Department uniform. Despite this knowledge, the City allegedly failed to implement reasonable protective or supervisory measures, leading to Leeper’s assault by Thompson. As a result, she claimed to suffer from emotional distress, including depression, anxiety, shame, fear, anger, sadness, embarrassment, and physical health problems such as hypervigilance and irritability.
Leeper moved to strike two rebuttal expert witnesses designated by the City of Tacoma, Ryan Spurling and Dr. Douglas Robinson. She argued that these witnesses were not offering rebuttal opinions and should have been disclosed earlier. Tacoma responds that no rule requires it to designate a primary expert to address the opponent’s expert expected opinions and evidence, but rather the defense is permitted to wait until after Plaintiff’s expert disclosures to disclose experts to rebut the same subjects.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Ryan Spurling‘s career in law enforcement has spanned more than 32 years. He has served in the law enforcement community with the Washington State Patrol (WSP), the Mason County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), and as an expert witness for Use of Force (UOF) and Police practices.
Psychiatry Expert Witness
Douglas Perry Robinson is a psychiatrist in Seattle, WA and has over 47 years of experience in the medical field. He graduated from University of Utah in 1976.
Discussion by the Court
The Court found that both Spurling and Robinson met the requirements of Rule 26 as experts “intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party.”
Furthermore, and in any event, Leeper waited almost four years after the cutoff date for motions related to discovery and more than a year after remand and just weeks before trial to move to strike as untimely experts Tacoma disclosed in 2021. Any prejudice from the allegedly late disclosure could have been ameliorated if she had raised the issue much sooner.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Tacoma’s expert witnesses, Ryan Spurling and Dr. Douglas Robinson.
Key Takeaways:
The party with the burden of proof on an issue should disclose its expert testimony before the other party is required to disclose an expert to rebut that opinion testimony. Furthermore, and in any event, Leeper waited almost four years after the cutoff date for motions related to discovery and more than a year after remand and just weeks before trial to move to strike as untimely experts Tacoma disclosed in 2021.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Leeper V. City Of Tacoma Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:20cv5467 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Order Date: | December 13, 2024 |
