Ramirez et al v. Bohm 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
Janelle Ramirez, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Robert D Bohm, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01660-PHX-KML
ORDER
After this case was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court in May 2025,
defendants filed an answer. (Doc. 18.) The court issued a case management order in July
2025, and the parties are conducting discovery. (Doc. 20.) On October 30, 2025, plaintiffs
filed a “Motion to Qualify Dr. Arellano as Obstetrician-Gynecologist For the Purpose of
Expert Testimony.” (Doc. 32.) Plaintiffs explain they “seek to establish the necessary
qualifications of their expert witness(es) in advance as to prevent Defendants from seeking
to strike Plaintiffs’ expert(s) after the close of discovery.” (Doc. 32 at 4.)
Assuming the relevant provisions of Arizona law apply in this case, plaintiffs were
required to provide a “preliminary expert opinion affidavit” with their initial disclosures.
A.R.S. § 12-2603. Plaintiffs purportedly provided such an affidavit on August 11, 2025.
On October 10, 2025, defendants sent a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel claiming the preliminary
expert affidavit was “deficient” pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603 and A.R.S. § 12-2604, the
latter being the statute that provides the standard for expert testimony at trial. (Doc. 32-1
at 17.) Defendants demanded plaintiffs “serve a proper affidavit . . . by October 24, 2025”
Case 2:25-cv-01660-KML Document 35 Filed 11/05/25 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
or defendants would be “filing an appropriate Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 32-1 at 19.) The
parties exchanged additional correspondence, but defendants did not file a motion. Instead,
on October 30, 2025, plaintiffs filed their motion that requests the court accept their
proposed expert as qualified under Arizona law.
Plaintiffs’ motion does not cite the procedural basis for the relief they seek. The
statute regarding preliminary expert opinion affidavits provides “[t]he court, on its own
motion or the motion of the health care professional . . . shall dismiss the claim against the
health care professional” if a plaintiff “fails to file and serve a preliminary expert opinion
affidavit.” A.R.S. § 12-2603(F). That statute makes no mention of a plaintiff seeking a
preliminary ruling regarding the adequacy of a preliminary expert affidavit. Similarly,
A.R.S. § 12-2604(A) identifies when “a person shall not give expert testimony on the
appropriate standard of practice or care,” but it does not mention a procedure for a plaintiff
to obtain an early indication that the chosen expert is sufficient. Disputes involving A.R.S.
§ 12-2604(A) typically arise at summary judgment or trial. See, e.g., Rasor v. Nw. Hosp.,
LLC, 403 P.3d 572, 577 (Ariz. 2017). Plaintiffs have not explained why it is necessary for
the court to resolve the qualifications of their expert now.
Trial courts are not required to issue early evidentiary rulings of the sort plaintiffs
seek. Cf. United States v. Browne, 829 F.2d 760, 762 (9th Cir. 1987) (trial courts have
discretion to issue advance evidentiary rulings but they are not required to do so). Many
courts have refused to opine on the admissibility of expert testimony at early stages of a
case. See Pipkin v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R. Co., No. C04-5591RJB, 2005 WL
5977657, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2005) (declining to exclude defense expert at an
“early juncture” because “[t]he issue raised in the plaintiffs’ motion is an evidentiary one
that should be resolved on a date closer to trial”); In re Flint Water Cases, No.
516CV10444JELEAS, 2024 WL 890546, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 1, 2024) (collecting cases
denying as premature motions to disqualify experts filed before or even shortly after
dispositive motions are filed). In this case, disputes regarding expert qualifications must be
presented through the usual method of a party filing a motion seeking to exclude the
Case 2:25-cv-01660-KML Document 35 Filed 11/05/25 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
opposing side’s expert. Such motions are only permitted at an appropriate time, i.e., at
summary judgment (and only then where granting or denying such a motion is critical to
resolution of the summary judgment motion), or shortly before trial. The court need not,
and will not, wade into the admissibility of expert testimony when there is no present need
to do so.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Qualify (Doc. 32) is DENIED.
Dated this 5th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-01660-KML Document 35 Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 3