Plaintiff, Lori Mendez suffered a head injury while she was shopping at a Hobby Lobby store in Reno on June 5, 2021. It all started when she reached for an item on a shelf that was higher up. The shelves were close together and as Mendez grabbed an item off of the lower shelf, the top shelf came unhooked and crashed down on her head.
Plaintiff filed a motion to to strike the Defendant’s supplemental expert report of Dr. Saman Hazany, MD, DABR.
Neuroradiology Expert Witness
Dr. Saman Hazany is an award‑winning, Harvard‑trained neuroradiologist based in greater Los Angeles, with extensive experience in the care of patients with traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, stroke, epilepsy, and brain tumor.
He holds board certification and the Certificate of Added Qualification (CAQ) in radiology and neuroradiology.
Discussion by the Court
According to the Court’s scheduling order, the deadline for initial expert reports was March 25, 2024. On that date, Hobby Lobby served Plaintiff with its initial expert disclosure, which disclosed Hazany and included his November 22, 2023 initial expert report. That report listed 29 images that Hazany reviewed. On October 8, 2024, Hobby Lobby served Plaintiff with a supplemental report from Hazany, in which he reviewed an additional seven images. It is undisputed that these seven images were available to Hazany at the time of his initial expert report.
The Supplemental Report was Untimely
The Defendants did not appear to dispute that the disclosure was untimely. Because the parties agreed that Hazany had access to the seven images at the time of his initial report, the supplemental report was improper under Rule 26(e).
Striking is Warranted Under Rule 37
The Defendant primarily argued that sanctions are not warranted because the improper supplemental report was harmless. However, there is no dispute that the Defendants supplemental report reviews seven images not reviewed at all in the initial report. The supplemental report makes findings and conclusions as to several of these images, such as “No CT evidence for traumatic brain injury,” “Other etiologies including traumatic brain injury are unlikely,” and “No post-traumatic findings.”
In this case, the deadline for rebuttal expert disclosure was May 22, 2024. The Defendants did not serve the supplemental disclosure until October 8, 2024, which was only 15 days before discovery closed. As Plaintiffs pointed out, this meant that Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert had no opportunity to review and rebut the supplement.
The Court granted the parties multiple extensions of time during the discovery period, including an extension of the rebuttal expert deadline. Moreover, the prejudice cannot be cured when the discovery is closed.
Held
The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Defendant’s supplemental expert report of Dr. Saman Hazany.
Key Takeaway:
The late disclosure meant that Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert was not able to review and rebut the new conclusions and opinions present in Hazany’s supplemental report.
Any risk of prejudice or surprise cannot be easily be cured at this stage.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Mendez V. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 3:23cv181 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Nevada |
| Order Date: | July 15, 2025 |
Leave a Reply