Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent
Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Maryland State Bar Association
Top 100 Trial Lawyers
DC Bar
Maryland Association for Justice
American Bar Association
Prince George's County Bar Association

Motion In Limine


Plaintiff *
v. * CAL 07-29347
Defendant *


Comes now the plaintiff, Jane Doe, by and through her attorneys, FORAN & FORAN, P.A. and moves in limine to preclude the testimony of the Defendants’, John Smith, experts and for reasons therefore states as follows:

  1. Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents were propounded to Smith along with the Complaint which was filed with the Court on or about October 29, 2007.
  2. Defendant Smith was served with the Complaint, Interrogatories and Requests for Production in November 2007, and filed an Answer on December 10, 2007.
  3. Interrogatory No. 14 asked for the “name and address and telephone number of each expert witness, the subject matter that his or her testimony will relate to, the substance of the facts and opinions of which he or she is expected to testify, a summary of the grounds of each such opinion rendered to you” and “the educational background and degrees held by such witness.” (See attached as Exhibit A). There has been no Supplemental or amended Answer to this Interrogatory filed by the Defendant herein.
  4. In Request No.2 for Requests for Production, the Plaintiff asked for “A copy of any and all expert reports you have received.”(See attached as Exhibit B). Smith has failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s requests, and there has been no supplemental or amended Response to the Request for Production of Documents filed by the Defendant.
  5. According to the scheduling order in this case, a pre-trial statement was filed by both parties in the case. Just as Defendant failed to identify any expert in either the Answers to Interrogatories and/or the Response to the Request for Production of Documents, Defendant failed to identify an expert in his Pre Trial Statement either (See attached as Exhibit C).
  6. The parties attended a pre-trial Conference on July 8, 2008, during which the Court granted the Defendant, an additional twenty-three (23) days or until July 31, 2008 for the Defendant to submit an expert report. (See attached as Exhibit D). The Defendant has yet to provide the expert report.
  7. Maryland Rule 2-504(b)(1)(B) provides that a scheduling order shall include one or more dates by which each party shall identify each person it intends to call as an expert witness at trial. By this very rule, the parties designation must contain the information required by Maryland Rule 2-402(e)(1)(A), including the identity of the witness, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, a summary of the grounds of the expert’s opinion and a copy of any report prepared by the expert concerning his or her opinions and findings. In this case, Defendant’s deadline to identify an expert witness was July 31, 2008. The Defendant has simply failed (and continues to fail) to do so. Defendant has not provided the Plaintiff with copies of any reports which its expert will base testimony upon. Defendant has failed to (1) identify the subject matter which his expert is intended to testify upon; (2) provide a summary of the grounds of his expert opinion; (3) disclose its expert in compliance with the Maryland Rules and the Scheduling Order issued in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s experts should be precluded.
  8. By the Defendants willful failure to comply with virtually any of the discovery rules in this matter, the Plaintiff has been prejudiced and unable to properly prepare the case for trial. Specifically, Plaintiff is not able to meet with Plaintiff’s experts (properly provided by Plaintiff in discovery and in the Pre Trial Statement) in order to prepare said expert with the substance of the Defendant’s expert’s opinions, so that Plaintiff’s experts will be able to comment thereon. This puts the Plaintiff at a severe disadvantage in preparing for trial because he is unable to anticipate the defense put forth by the Defendants.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs requests that the Court preclude the Defendant from calling as an expert witness any alleged expert not properly identified pursuant to the scheduling order, pre-trial order and discovery rules.


Ryan J. Foran
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6301 Ivy Lane, #600
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
(301) 441-2022

Client Reviews
“John Foran is very knowledgeable, thorough, and kind. He takes time to explain legal terms and the process of your case. I'm happy that I found him.” Chauncey
“Ryan Foran is an excellent attorney, responds to his emails and communicates to the point. Mary is also an excellent paralegal secretary. Thanks Foran and Foran.” Gee M.
“Five star review. Great team to work with. Highly recommend” Susan R.