Nguyen v. IBP, Inc.

Hong Van Nguyen (plaintiff) retained Dr. Nathan Schechter as an expert witness against IBP, Inc. (defendant) and disclosed a report of his opinions and their bases, along with an unsigned curriculum vitae that omitted his publications from the past ten years, and an unsigned list of 137 patients for whom he had given deposition testimony over the prior 34 months — a list missing complete attorney contact information and any identification of the actual cases or whether he testified at trial. Nguyen later disclosed by supplemental interrogatory answer that Schechter was being paid $750 for his work, though this was not in the original expert report. IBP moved to exclude Schechter's testimony, arguing the disclosure did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).