Untimely Disclosure of Neurosurgery Expert Permitted in Damages-Only Case
Posted on September 2, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff, Pearl R. Kline was driving her vehicle eastbound on Interstate 70, near the Clear Springs exit in Washington County, Maryland. At the same time, a vehicle owned by Defendant Road Range Express and operated by Defendant Sukhjinder Singh was traveling directly behind Plaintiff’s vehicle. When Plaintiff stopped for traffic, Singh’s vehicle struck the rear of her vehicle. This incident led Plaintiff to file a negligence action against Road Range Express and Singh.
On June 19, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure of Dr. Ira M. Garonzik. In their motion, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosure should be stricken because it is (1) untimely and (2) insufficient, in violation of Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Neurosurgery Expert Witness
Dr. Ira M. Garonzik is the founder and president of the Baltimore Neurosurgery and Spine Center which began in 2005. The Baltimore Neurosurgery and Spine Center specializes in the comprehensive treatment of a wide variety of intracranial and spinal disorders. Garonzik is widely published, having authored more than fifty peer reviewed articles, book chapters and abstracts.
He completed his neurosurgical residency at the Johns Hopkins Hospital after earning his medical degree from the Emory University School of Medicine Summa Cum Laude and his undergraduate degree with highest honors from Johns Hopkins University. During his training, Garonzik completed specialized fellowships in complex spinal surgery and functional neurosurgery.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants argued that they would be severely prejudiced if the Court were to permit the untimely disclosure of Plaintiff’s expert because discovery had closed and the deadlines for their own disclosures had elapsed, leaving them with no opportunity to rebut or respond to Garonzik’s opinions.
Plaintiff’s disclosure included the expert’s curriculum vitae and fee schedule, but omitted the expert’s report and did not otherwise summarize the expert’s opinions. There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s disclosure of Garonzik was untimely. And because the disclosure lacked the required written report when Plaintiff served it on Defendants, it was plainly insufficient.
There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s disclosure of Garonzik was untimely. And because the disclosure lacked the required written report when Plaintiff served it on Defendants, it was plainly insufficient under Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, as Plaintiff’s own opposition admitted, the untimely disclosure was not substantially justified. Consequently, the real inquiry is whether the error was harmless.
In determining whether a party’s failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless so as to exclude a witness pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1), this Court has broad discretion and is guided by consideration of five factors: “(1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would be offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the surprise; (3) the extent to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial; (4) the importance of the evidence; and (5) the non-disclosing party’s explanation for its failure to disclose the evidence.”
Analysis
The first factor, surprise, weighed in Defendants’ favor, as the disclosure came more than two months after the disclosure deadline and without advance notice.
The second factor—the ability to cure—cuts both ways. Because the discovery period has closed, Defendants’ ability to identify a rebuttal expert is limited. However, reopening discovery for the narrow purpose of allowing Defendants to serve their own expert disclosures provides an adequate cure. Indeed, there are several cases in this District that have permitted limited extensions of discovery to mitigate the prejudice from untimely expert disclosures.
The third factor, disruption of trial, did not weigh heavily against Plaintiff, as no trial date has been set, and a modest extension of expert discovery will not substantially disrupt proceedings. The fourth factor, the importance of the evidence, strongly favored Plaintiff, as Garonzik is Plaintiff’s sole expert on damages, which is the only remaining issue in this case. Finally, the fifth factor, the explanation for the delay, weighed against Plaintiff, as no justification has been provided for failing to comply with the Scheduling Order.
Given the broad discretion afforded to district courts in weighing these factors and fashioning appropriate sanctions, the Court will treat Plaintiff’s disclosure of Garonzik as an untimely Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure that can be rendered harmless by modifying deadlines in the Scheduling Order.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure of Dr. Ira M. Garonzik.
Key Takeaway:
On balance, although Plaintiff’s disclosure was untimely, insufficient, and unjustified, precluding Plaintiff’s expert from testifying altogether in this damages-only case would be an extreme result.
The Court can adequately minimize the prejudice to Defendants through a limited reopening of expert discovery. The Court will re-open discovery for a 45-day period for the sole purpose of allowing Defendants to conduct discovery related to Garonzik’s report (including a deposition of Garonzik) and to designate rebuttal witnesses.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Kline V. Singh Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:25cv63 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Maryland |
| Order Date: | August 28, 2025 |
