Hassebrock v. Bernhoft

In plaintiffs’ malpractice actions against defendants-plaintiffs’ former attorneys and accountants, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time to identify their expert witness, and then granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, because: (1) plaintiffs required expert witness to establish their legal and accounting malpractice claims that concerned allegations of whether defendants rendered professionally competent services within applicable standard of care; and (2) common-knowledge exception to need for expert witness testimony did not apply. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s argument that 90-day deadline to name expert as set forth in Rule 26(a)(2)(D) applied to instant case, where: (1) plaintiffs acknowledged that local rule setting forth 115-day deadline for naming expert witness applied and that their attempt to name expert witness was untimely under said rule; (2) plaintiffs made instant extension request after deadline for close of discovery had passed; and (3) discovery deadline set by Dist. Ct. controlled over default deadline set under Rule 26(a)(2)(D). Also, Dist. Ct. could properly find that reopening of discovery could cause further delay in case.