Hubbard v. DCG Inc et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JULIA HUBBARD, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § No. 3:25-cv-380-X
§
DCG INC., d/b/a THE LODGE,
JASON E. MONEY, SR., DAWN
RIZOS, & CRAIG CLINT STIFF,
JR.,
§
§
§
§
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 30, 2026, Defendant DCG Inc., doing business as The Lodge, and
Defendant Dawn Rizos (collectively, the “Lodge Defendants”) filed an Expedited
Motion to Strike Plaintiff Julia Hubbard’s Expert Disclosure and Designation. See
Dkt. No. 50.
United States District Judge Brantley Starr referred the Motion to the
undersigned United States magistrate judge for hearing, if necessary, and
determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of reference. See Dkt. No. 51.
The Lodge Defendants asked the Court to strike or limit Hubbard’s expert Dr.
Leslie Dobson or to compel production of additional materials. See Dkt. No. 50 at 11-
12. The Court granted the Motion, finding that Hubbard’s non-compliance with Rule
26 was not substantially justified or harmless. See Dkt. No. 57.
On August 25, 2026, Judge Starr issued an amended scheduling order. See Dkt.
No. 80. Among other deadlines, Judge Starr set the new deadline for challenges to
Case 3:25-cv-00380-X Document 97 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
experts to October 19, 2026. See id. at 1. The Court then directed the parties to
address whether the Court should, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b),
reconsider its order granting The Lodge Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Expert Disclosure and Designation in light of the amendment to the Scheduling
Order. See Dkt. No. 81.
Background
Hubbard filed this lawsuit against the Lodge Defendants; Defendant Jason E.
Money, Sr.; and Defendant Craig Clint Stiff, Jr., alleging that she was sexually
assaulted by Money and Stiff, two customers of the Lodge. See Dkt. No. 1.
The Court entered a scheduling order stating that “[t]he party with the burden
of proof on a claim shall file a designation of expert witnesses and comply with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by March 31, 2026” and that “[r]ebuttal designation of expert
witnesses and compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be made by April 30,
2026.” Dkt. No. 42 at 1.
On March 31, 2026, Hubbard designated Dr. Dobson as an expert and served
to Defendants Dr. Dobson’s report, curriculum vitae (“CV”), and case list. See Dkt.
No. 45.
On April 28, 2026, the Court extended the Lodge Defendants’ deadline to
designate their rebuttal expert to June 30, 2026. See Dkt. No. 49.
On May 30, 2026, the Lodge Defendants filed an emergency motion to strike
Hubbard’s designation of Dr. Dobson. See Dkt. No. 50. They contended that
Hubbard’s expert disclosure was deficient because Hubbard had not provided the
Case 3:25-cv-00380-X Document 97 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
underlying data that Dr. Dobson used to reach her conclusions. See id. At 8.
The Court considered the four Rule 26 factors holistically and found Hubbard’s
explanation for her non-compliance inadequate, found that Dr. Dobson’s testimony
was important but not exempt from Rule 26 disclosure rules, found that the Lodge
Defendants had been prejudiced, and found that a continuance unlikely to resolve the
dispute because the parties were at an impasse over who would receive the
underlying data. See Dkt. No. 57 at 5-9. And, so, the Court granted The Lodge
Defendants’ emergency motion to strike [Dkt. No. 50]. See id.
The parties agreed to a protective order. See Dkt. Nos. 58 & 64. And, on June
30, 2026, Hubbard disclosed Dr. Dobson’s data under the terms of the protective
order. See Dkt. No. 83-1. Hubbard’s email disclosing the data included a letter stating:
These documents are produced pursuant to the terms of the Protective
Order agreed to by all Parties as of June 29, 2026. If you do not agree to
abide by these terms, you are not authorized to access these materials
and, if you have downloaded them, you agree to delete all copies. These
documents are also produced solely for use in connection with the
testimony and report of Dr. Leslie Dobson and any rebuttal experts, and
for no other purpose. If Dr. Dobson’s report is not reinstated, you agree
to delete these materials and all copies.
Id.
On August 25, 2026, Judge Starr issued the amended scheduling order, setting
a new deadline for challenges to experts to October 19, 2026, see Dkt. No. 80 at 1, and
the Court directed the parties to address whether the Court should, under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), reconsider its previous order granting The Lodge
Defendants’ motion to strike. See Dkt. No. 81. The Lodge Defendants and Jason E.
Money, Sr. ask the Court to decline reconsideration, see Dkt. Nos. 83, 87, 91, & 92,
Case 3:25-cv-00380-X Document 97 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
while Hubbard asks the Court to reconsider its order and reinstate Dr. Dobson, see
Dkt. Nos. 90 & 93.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court exercises its discretion to reconsider
its order striking Hubbard’s designation of Dr. Dobson and VACATES the Exclusion
Order [Dkt. No. 57].
Legal Standards and Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) “allows parties to seek reconsideration of
interlocutory orders and authorizes the district court to ‘revise[ ] at any time’ ‘any
order or other decision ... [that] does not end the action.’” Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P.,
864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)).
“Under Rule 54(b), the trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its decision
for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an
intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law.” Id. (cleaned up); see
also Dall. Cnty., Tex. v. MERSCORP, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 938, 950 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
(“Although the precise standard for evaluating a motion to reconsider under Rule
54(b) is unclear, whether to grant such a motion rests within the discretion of the
court, which should determine whether reconsideration is necessary under the
circumstances.” (cleaned up)).
The Lodge Defendants contend that Judge Starr’s amendment to the
scheduling order does not provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its prior order
striking Hubbard’s expert disclosure and designation. See Dkt. No. 83 at 1. They
report that they have not accessed Dr. Dobson’s underlying data because Hubbard
Case 3:25-cv-00380-X Document 97 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 5 -
sent it with the condition that “clicking the link required The Lodge Defendants to
agree that they would delete the material if the expert was not reinstated.” Id. at 5;
see also Dkt. No. 91 at 2 (“the ‘impasse’ recognized by the Court in the Exclusion
Order has not dissolved … due to [Hubbard]’s unilaterally imposed condition to the
[] data”). And the Lodge Defendants argue that they would suffer prejudice by the
Court’s reconsideration when they relied on the Court’s previous order for their
dispositive motions. See id. at 3, 6.
Jason E. Money, Sr. similarly argues that the Court should decline to
reconsider its prior order because the amended scheduling order does not cure the
Rule 26 violation or the prejudice incurred and Hubbard’s emailing of the link does
not satisfy the requirement that she produce the data – and Money reports that he,
too, has not clicked the link. See Dkt. Nos. 87 & 92.
For her part, Hubbard argues for the Court’s reconsideration. See Dkt. No. 90.
Hubbard claims that “the two key premises underlying the exclusion – that the
parties were at an ‘impasse’ due to [Hubbard] not producing certain underlying data,
and that no continuance would cure the resulting prejudice – no longer hold.” Id. at
1. Hubbard reports that she produced the underlying data “to every Defendant” and
that it has been available to Defendants since June. Id. at 1-2; 4-5. Hubbard also
asserts that any timing prejudice to Defendants has been eliminated because the
deadlines for dispositive motions, expert motions, and trial are no longer operative.
Id. at 2, 5.
Hubbard asks the Court to vacate the exclusion of Dr. Dobson’s expert
Case 3:25-cv-00380-X Document 97 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 6 -
disclosure and designation and set a schedule for rebuttal designation and remaining
expert discovery. Id. at 9.
Under Rule 54(b) and Austin’s lenient standards, the Court is persuaded by
Hubbard’s arguments. The Court’s previous exclusion order removed Hubbard’s only
expert on the psychological injury at the center of this case over her failure to produce
the data underlying Dr. Dobson’s expert report. See generally Dkt. No. 57.
But Hubbard resolved that failure when she disclosed the data via email link
on June 30, 2026. See Dkt. No. 83-1. Defendants claim they have not accessed the
data because they did not click on the link due to concerns over conditional disclosure.
And, yet, no defendant raised these concerns about the purported conditions in any
filing with the Court from the time Hubbard disclosed the data on June 30, 2026 until
the Court-ordered responses on September 3, 2026. And, as far as the Court is aware,
no Defendant asked Hubbard to modify the purported conditions. See Dkt. No. 93 at
2.
Hubbard has complied with her discovery obligations to produce the data
underlying Dr. Dobson’s expert report, and the Defendants’ decisions to refrain from
clicking the link to download and access the data do not change this compliance.
Conclusion
The Court exercises its discretion under Rule 54(b) to reconsider its order
striking Hubbard’s designation of Dr. Dobson and VACATES the Exclusion Order
[Dkt. No. 57] and DENIES The Lodge Defendant’s Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 50].
Case 3:25-cv-00380-X Document 97 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 7 -
SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 14, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00380-X Document 97 Filed 10/14/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID <pageID>