Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr.
Franz’s lawsuit—removed from state court—sought damages for injuries sustained in a 2007 vehicular accident. The court denied New England Disposal Technologies Inc.’s motion in limine to preclude expert testimony from witnesses who have not provided disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), and also seeking attorney’s fees and other expenses arising from that motion. Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2), Franz disclosed 14 expert witnesses. All but two disclosures showed that Franz’s experts were not retained for the purpose of providing expert testimony. Disclosures for each of those 12 witnesses showed that they were Franz’s medical providers. Thus, they were not required to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s report requirement. As a result, they were precluded from providing opinions based on information obtained outside the course of treatment and beyond a reasonable reading of their medical records. Pursuant to Peck v. Hudson City and Motta v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., for a doctor to testify concerning opinions not gleaned from his own diagnoses and treatment of the plaintiff, he must have been designated an expert witness and must have prepared the necessary expert report.