Doe et al v. Mayes et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jane Doe, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Col. Jeffrey Glover, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-02259-PHX-MTL
ORDER
The parties filed a Joint Discovery Dispute Motion concerning Plaintiffs’ belated
disclosure of an expert report authored by Dr. Kristin Zgoba. (Doc. 262.)
I.
The Scheduling Order, as amended, requires the parties to make expert disclosures
pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(A) no later than January 9, 2026. (Doc. 206.) If a party fails to
timely make an expert disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B), “the party is not allowed to
use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial,
unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” F. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
II.
On August 19, 2025, Plaintiffs timely disclosed an expert report authored by Dr.
Zgoba and dated October 19, 2024. (Docs. 262, 262-3.) Plaintiffs produced a new expert
report, authored by Dr. Zgoba, to Defendants on May 19, 2026. This happened more than
four months after the deadline to do so under the Court’s Scheduling Order. The report is
a completely new opinion concerning “an independent examination of the effects of SB
Case 2:24-cv-02259-MTL Document 266 Filed 06/05/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1404 on registrants in Arizona” and “based on in-depth interviews with 11 Arizona
registrants affected by SB 1404.” (Doc. 262-2 at 4.)
According to Plaintiffs, the delayed disclosure was due to Dr. Zogba’s prolonged
conducting of an independent study that would serve as the basis for the report. (Doc. 262
at 4-5.) But that justification does not explain why Plaintiffs did not request an extension
of the deadline that they flouted. Dr. Zogba began working on her study in May 2025,
providing Plaintiffs with ample time to foresee that the length of the study would require
extending the deadline. Only now do Plaintiffs offer to, “if needed and after a
meet-and-confer, . . . request that the deadline for fact discovery and expert depositions, as
well as the deadline for expert reports, be extended.” (Doc. 262 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ belated
offer to seek an extension only after being forced to litigate a discovery motion underscores
their lack of diligence in managing the deadlines in this case. The Court therefore finds that
substantial justification does not exist to disregard Plaintiffs’ tardiness in disclosing the
expert report or otherwise requesting modifications to the deadlines imposed by the
Scheduling Order.
The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ failure to timely disclose the expert report is not
harmless. Plaintiffs argue “there is no evidence that Defendants were prejudiced.” (Id. at
5.) Plaintiffs maintain this contention despite disclosing Dr. Zgoba’s report less than two
days before Defendants were scheduled to depose her. (Doc. 253.) Plaintiffs’ late
disclosure deprived Defendants of an adequate opportunity to prepare. While Plaintiffs
offer to ameliorate this prejudice by rearranging the timetable set by this Court,
“[d]isruption to the schedule of the court and other parties . . . is not harmless.” Wong v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005). That is why the Court’s
Scheduling Order advises the parties that “[t]he Court will . . . enforce the deadlines set
forth in this Order, and the parties should plan their litigation activities accordingly.”
(Doc. 181 ¶ 13.) Specifically with respect to the disclosure of expert reports, the
Scheduling Order states that “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, parties will not be
permitted to supplement expert reports after” the disclosure deadlines set by the Court.
Case 2:24-cv-02259-MTL Document 266 Filed 06/05/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Doc. 181 ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs’ noncompliance with the Scheduling Order is not harmless.
The Court will grant the Joint Discovery Dispute Motion as to Defendants and bar
Plaintiff’s reliance on the opinions expressed in the late expert report (Doc. 262-2).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Discovery Dispute Motion
(Doc. 262) is GRANTED as to Defendants. Plaintiffs may not rely on, in any motion, at
any hearing, or at trial, any untimely opinions expressed by Dr. Zgoba in her report dated
May 15, 2026 (Doc. 262-2).
Dated this 4th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-02259-MTL Document 266 Filed 06/05/26 Page 3 of 3