Sneed et al v. Gibbs et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM
Document 163 Filed 01/12/26
Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
KATHRYN SNEED AND SNEED §
§
EQUESTRIAN ESTATES, LLC, § §
§ §
Plaintiffs,
§
V.
§
§
JEFFREY GIBBS, CALLI ROUSE,
§
GIBBS SHOW HORSES, CALLI ROUSE §
§
SHOW HORSES, FRANK BONAPARTE, § §
FRANK BONAPARTE IN HIS CAPACITY
§ §
AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE BONAPARTE § §
FAMILY LIVING TRUST, PATRICIA
§ § Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-871
BONAPARTE, PATRICIA BONAPARTE IN
§
Judge Mazzant
BONAPARTE FAMILY LIVING TRUST,
§
JUSTIN SCHMIDT, JEANNIE SCHMIDT,
§ §
HAILO INVESTMENTS, LLC, DR.
CAMERON STOUDT DONNELL, EQUINE
SPORTS MEDICINE AND
REHABILITATION, DR. DALTON PATE,
AND MID-SOUTH EQUINE SPORTS §
MEDICINE & SURGERY
§
Defendants.
§ §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are two motions to exclude: the Hailo Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony that Plaintiffs' Horses Contracted Strangles at the Hailo Property (Dkt. #141) and Defendants Jeffrey Gibbs, Calli Rouse, Gibbs Show Horses, and Calli Rouse Show Horses' Corrected Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony Upon Plaintiffs' Claims (Dkt. #144).1
1 Several motions for summary judgment are also pending in the case. As explained at the beginning of the analysis section, these motions will be pertinent to the Court's decision as to whether the importance of the challenged expert testimony weighs against or in favor of exclusion.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO
HER CAPACITY AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE
§
§ § § §
§ § § §

2
Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should
be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This is a tort case arising from the death or injury to several show horses. Plaintiff Kathryn
Sneed (“Sneed”), and her company, Plaintiff Sneed Equestrian Estates, LLC (together,
“Plaintiffs”), seek redress.
I. Factual Background
Plaintiffs seek recovery for injuries to several show horses. Three significant factors played
a role in the horses’ unfortunate fate: the outbreak of an illness, the horses’ alleged physical abuse,
and the alleged malpractice of two veterinarians.
The injured or deceased horses for which Plaintiffs seek redress are: Bank on the Best
(“Cash”), PartyLikeYouMeanIt (“Faith”), Avante Garde (“Ava”), Mighty Hot Gal (“Bella”), and
A Sudden Wonder (“Sudden”) (together, the “Sneed Horses”). Below, the Court provides
background on Defendants’ alleged roles in the Sneed Horses’s story.
A. The Strangles Outbreak
Beginning in June 2022, Sneed entered into agreements with Jeffrey Gibbs (“Gibbs”), Calli
Rouse (“Rouse”), Gibbs Show Horses, and Calli Rouse Show Horses (together, the “Gibbs
Defendants”) for the care and training of the Sneed Horses (Dkt. #94 at p. 5). Sneed made monthly
payments to the Gibbs Defendants in exchange for their services (Dkt. #94 at p. 5). Plaintiffs allege
that the Gibbs Defendants consistently represented to Sneed that they would care and train for the
Sneed Horses according to the highest industry standards (Dkt. #94 at p. 5).
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The Gibbs Defendants initially boarded the Sneed Horses on property owned by Hailo
Investments, LLC (“Hailo”) and managed by Justin Schmidt and Jeannie Schmidt (the “Schmidt
Defendants,” and together with Hailo, the “Hailo Defendants”) (Dkt. #94 at p. 5).
Plaintiffs allege that the Schmidt Defendants, and, vicariously, Hailo, permitted a
strangles-infected horse onto their property without taking proper and necessary precautions
against the spread of the illness (Dkt. #132 at p. 3). Strangles is a highly contagious disease of the
equine upper respiratory track (Dkt. #94 at p. 5 n.1). Plaintiffs allege that all the Sneed Horses were
“exposed” to strangles (Dkt. #94 at p. 10).
In December 2022, Gibbs transported the Sneed Horses to the Black Bird Ranch
(the “Ranch”), a facility owned and operated by the Bonaparte Family Living Trust, and under the
control of co-Trustees Frank Bonaparte and Patricia Bonaparte (together, the “Bonaparte
Defendants”). Around January 16, 2023, Cash was moved to EE Ranch in Whitesboro, Texas
(Dkt. #132 at p. 4). Plaintiffs allege that almost immediately after arriving at the EE Ranch, staff
noticed Cash’s symptoms and contacted a veterinarian (Dkt. #132 at p. 4). The infection, Plaintiffs
allege, almost cost Cash his life and left him unable to breed for the 2023 breeding season (Dkt. #94
at p. 10). Plaintiffs also allege that Faith was infected with strangles, which “was kept secret” from
Sneed (Dkt. #94 at p. 11).
B. The Physical Abuse
Plaintiffs allege that Gibbs abused the Sneed Horses during their stay on Hailo and the
Bonaparte’s property (Dkt. #94 at pp. 9–10). According to Plaintiffs, Gibbs beat all the Sneed
Horses with whips, boards, and other objects (Dkt. #94 at p. 10). An intern allegedly observed Ava
tied up “in her stall with her head tied up, and had also tied her head down to her chest with reins
drawn under her legs and tied to the saddle” (Dkt. #94 at p. 10).
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Plaintiffs claim the intern also saw Gibbs “hobbling Ava’s legs together and forcing” her to
run (Dkt. #94 at p. 10). This allegedly led Ava to “flip over, fall, and run into things multiple times”
(Dkt. #94 at p. 10). The intern allegedly stated that if Ava “did not run,” Gibbs “would use blunt
traumatic force on her” (Dkt. #94 at p. 10). Plaintiffs also allege that Gibbs would kick the horses
if “they did not get up when hobbled” (Dkt. #94 at p. 10).
Further, Plaintiffs allege that a witness saw Gibbs put Ava into her stall while she had a
swollen and bloody mouth “from the force of the bit in her mouth after being tied down,” and that
Ava was then left in the stall for days (Dkt. #94 at p. 10).
Plaintiffs also seek relief relating to Bella and Sudden (Dkt. #94 at p. 12). Bella allegedly
suffered from a bone chip on the front right fetlock and another on her second cervical vertebra,
which is the same vertebra dislocated in Ava (Dkt. #94 at p. 12). Bella needs surgery and will be
required to rest for sixty days after surgery (Dkt. #94 at p. 12). Bella has missed the entire 2023
show season and will not be shown the whole year, even if she recovers (Dkt. #94 at p. 12). Plaintiffs
claim that a veterinarian believes that the bone chip was “‘trauma’ related” (Dkt. #94 at p. 12).
Sudden has a bone spur in her hock, and arthritic changes in her knee/carpus (Dkt. #94 at p. 12).
Plaintiffs allege this will require Sudden to take sixty days off from shows (Dkt. #94 at p. 12).
C. Dr. Stoudt’s Alleged Malpractice and Ava’s Death
Ava was euthanized on August 10, 2023 (Dkt. #94 at p. 9). That day, the Gibbs Defendants
took the Sneed Horses to attend a competition (Dkt. #94 at p. 7). In the morning, Sneed sent a text
message to Rouse (one of the Gibbs Defendants caring for the Sneed Horses), checking on Faith
and the Gibbs Defendants’ arrival at the competition (Dkt. #94 at p. 7). Shortly after, at around
7:25 a.m., Rouse texted Sneed stating that the Gibbs Defendants called a veterinarian to check on
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Ava (Dkt. #94 at p. 8). That veterinarian was Dr. Cameron Stoudt (“Dr. Stoudt”), who co-owns
Equine Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation (“ESMR”) (together, the “Stoudt Defendants”).
At around 9:30 a.m., Sneed and Dr. Stoudt spoke on the phone (Dkt. #94 at p. 8). Dr. Stoudt
informed Sneed that Gibbs called around 7:00 a.m. “stating it was an emergency” (Dkt. #94 at
p. 8). Dr. Stoudt said that Ava was “‘down in her stall,’” and was already in that state when she
arrived to the scene (Dkt. #94 at p. 8). Dr. Stoudt took an x-ray of Ava’s neck (Dkt. #94 at p. 8).
Dr. Stoudt informed Sneed that Ava “had a fractured vertebrae at the area where the neck and
chest meet,” and “advised euthanasia” (Dkt. #94 at p. 8). Dr. Stoudt stated that she had sent the
x-ray to a neck surgeon, who also advised euthanasia (Dkt. #94 at p. 8).
Sneed then contacted Dr. Eric Johnson (“Dr. Johnson”), a veterinarian, for a second
opinion (Dkt. #94 at p. 8). Dr. Johnson reviewed the x-rays and called Sneed, stating that he did
not see a fracture (Dkt. #94 at p. 8). Instead, in Dr. Johnson’s view, Ava’s “disc was dislocated
severely” (Dkt. #94 at p. 8). Dr. Johnson asked for a ventral-dorsal view of the spine (Dkt. #94 at
p. 8). Dr. Stoudt sent a “poor-quality x-ray” to Sneed, who sent it to Dr. Johnson (Dkt. #94 at p.
8). Dr. Johnson then consulted with his colleagues, and informed Sneed that this type of injury
could only be caused by extreme trauma (Dkt. #94 at p. 8).
Sneed then called Dr. Kevin Claunch (“Dr. Claunch”), a veterinarian, for a third opinion
(Dkt. #94 at p. 9). Dr. Claunch reviewed the x-rays, and told Sneed that Ava’s injury could “only
occur in one of three ways: 1) by running into a fixed object with the head down, 2) a rotational fall,
or 3) by flipping over” (Dkt. #94 at p. 9). Dr. Claunch concluded that Ava was paralyzed (Dkt. #94
at p. 9). Only then did Sneed give Dr. Stoudt permission to euthanize Ava (Dkt. #94 at p. 9).
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Sneed’s husband, Darrell Sneed, then contacted Defendant Frank Bonaparte, who served
as the co-trustee for the Trust that owned the barn where Ava was stabled (Dkt. #94 at p. 9). Darrell
Sneed asked for video footage of Ava’s stall (Dkt. #94 at p. 9). He also asked when Ava was last let
out of her stall (Dkt. #94 at p. 9). Frank Bonaparte stated his “‘IT guy’” would get back to him
(Dkt. #94 at p. 9). Frank Bonaparte called back in a few minutes, and sent one photograph, claiming
it was from the night before (Dkt. #94 at p. 9). Frank Bonaparte also claimed he could not send
video footage, could not send “anything with a date stamped on the footage,” and only had footage
from the last seventy-two hours (Dkt. #94 at p. 9). On the call with Darrell Sneed, Frank Bonaparte
also stated that Ava ate all her food and acted normal the night before her death (the night of August
9, 2023) (Dkt. #94 at p. 9). However, Plaintiffs allege that blood lab work, taken from Ava at
8:05 a.m. on August 10, 2023, showed an elevated white blood cell count, elevated lymphocytes,
and dehydration (Dkt. #94 at p. 9). Dr. Stoudt’s photo also showed that Ava’s legs were swollen on
August 10, 2023 (Dkt. #94 at p. 9).
D. Faith’s Overmedication, Dr. Pate’s Alleged Malpractice, and Faith’s Death
Plaintiffs allege that Faith was drugged with illegal levels of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs) (Dkt. #94 at p. 11). One of the medications, Plaintiffs allege, is a known cause of
bone rotation, which causes laminitis (Dkt. #94 at p. 11). Laminitis is the inflammation and
subsequent separation of the laminae of the hoof, which is irreversible and often results in
euthanasia (Dkt. #94 at p. 11). Plaintiffs also allege that Faith had medicine poured into her ears,
which damaged the soft tissue lining of her ears (Dkt. #94 at p. 11). This technique, according to
Plaintiffs, is illegal and causes hearing loss and neurological problems (Dkt. #94 at p. 11). Plaintiffs
do not specify which Defendant allegedly engaged in this conduct, but they claim the
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
overmedication occurred during the competition the Gibbs Defendants attended in August 2023
(Dkt. #94 at p. 11).
In June 2024, Faith was admitted to Mid-South Equine Sports Medicine & Surgery, where
she was treated for severe laminitis by Dr. Dalton Pate (“Dr. Pate”) (together, the “Mid-South
Defendants”). Allegedly, Dr. Pate failed to perform an endocrine panel, did not check for insulin
resistance or check Faith’s records, and failed to check Faith’s records before injecting her with
steroids (Dkt. #94 at p. 11). Further, Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Pate kept Faith on the same antibiotic
treatment despite seeing no improvement (Dkt. #94 at p. 11).
Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Pate failed to keep Sneed updated on Faith’s health
(Dkt. #94 at p. 11). After three weeks, Faith was moved to another hospital where she was
subsequently euthanized (Dkt. #94 at p. 11).
II. Procedural History
On September 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed suit (Dkt. #1). Plaintiffs asserted claims of:
(1) breach of contract (against the Gibbs Defendants); (2) negligence resulting in injury to Sneed’s
horses (against all defendants); and (3) gross negligence including animal abuse and injury to
Sneed’s horses (against the Gibbs Defendants) (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 40–55). On April 24, 2024, Plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #57). In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs
added the Bonaparte Defendants as defendants in their legal capacity as co-trustees of the Trust
(Dkt. #57 at p. 1). On October 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint
(Dkt. #94). That complaint, which is currently operative, added the Mid-South Defendants to the
suit (Dkt. #94 at p. 1). In addition to the claims Plaintiffs asserted in their Original Complaint,
Plaintiffs assert veterinary malpractice claims against the Stoudt and Mid-South Defendants
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
(Dkt. #94 at p. 15). Plaintiffs also seek to maintain a “Res Ipsa Loquitur” cause of action against all
Defendants (Dkt. #94 at p. 18).
On July 17, 2025, the Stoudt Defendants (Dr. Stoudt and the company she co-owns) moved
for summary judgment (Dkt. #123). On September 15, 2025, the Mid-South Defendants (Dr. Pate
and the hospital where she cared for Faith) moved for summary judgment (Dkt. #145). On
September 15, 2025, the Hailo Defendants ( Justin and Jeannie Schmidt, who manage Hailo, the
company that owned the property where the Gibbs Defendants initially boarded the Sneed Horses)
also moved for summary judgment (Dkt. #146).
Plaintiffs oppose each motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #132; Dkt. #150; Dkt. #151).
The Stoudt Defendants filed a reply (Dkt. #137), and Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #138). The
Mid-South Defendants and Hailo Defendants also filed replies (Dkt. #152; Dkt. #153). Plaintiffs
filed a sur-reply to the Mid-South Defendants’ reply (Dkt. #154). In opposition to each motion for
summary judgment, Plaintiffs asserted that additional time to conduct discovery is warranted.
In addition to the motions for summary judgment, two motions to exclude experts were
filed. On September 8, 2025, the Hailo Defendants moved to exclude expert testimony that
Plaintiffs’ horses contracted strangles at the Hailo property (Dkt. #141). On September 9, 2025,
the Gibbs Defendants moved to exclude expert testimony on all claims against them (Dkt. #144).
The latter motion is opposed (Dkt. #155). Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Hailo Defendants’
motion to exclude. Both motions claim that Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures do not provide a summary
of their non-retained experts’ opinions.
On December 19, 2025, the Court granted an unopposed motion to continue the trial date
and amend the scheduling order (Dkt. #160). The motion to continue was based, among other
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
things, on the unfortunate development that, since the filing of the operative complaint, Cash has
now been euthanized. The motion stated that this “will have an effect on discovery and disclosure
obligations” (Dkt. #159 at p. 2 n.2). Pursuant to the Court’s order, discovery is now open until
February 27, 2026 (Dkt. #160). Trial is set for May 2026 (Dkt. #160).
LEGAL STANDARD
I. Expert Disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) governs the disclosure of expert testimony and
provides a mandatory framework for disclosure of experts in federal court. FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B)–(C). The framework applies differently depending on how the expert became
familiar with the facts that inform their opinion.
If a party retains or specially employs an expert to provide testimony, the party must provide
a written report that includes: (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and
the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; (iv) the witness’s qualifications,
including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years; (v) a list of all other cases in
which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case. FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
Before 2010, non-retained experts, such as treating physicians, were exempt from
disclosure requirements. Hooks v. Nationwide Hous. Sys., LLC, No. 15-729, 2016 WL 3667134, at *3
(E.D. La. July 11, 2016). After Congress’s 2010 amendments to Rule 26, non-retained experts are
subject to some disclosure requirements—which are less stringent than those required by Rule
26(a)(2)(B). Id. Under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), the propounding party must prepare a “disclosure”
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
regarding any expert witness who does not provide a written report. The disclosure of a
non-retained witness must state (1) “the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705” and (2) “a summary of the facts and
opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(C).
II. Exclusion of Experts Based on Rule 26 Violation
If a court determines that a party’s disclosures fail to comply with Rule 26, it must then
determine whether exclusion of the expert’s testimony is warranted. Rule 37(c)(1) provides that
“[i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the
party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence . . . unless the failure was
substantially justified or is harmless.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c)(1).
In evaluating whether a violation of Rule 26 is harmless, courts consider four factors: (1)
the importance of the evidence; (2) the prejudice to the opposing party of including the evidence;
(3) the possibility of curing such prejudice by granting a continuance; and (4) the explanation for
the party’s failure to disclose. Tex. A&M Rsch. Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 402 (5th
Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. $9,041,598.68, 163 F.3d 238, 252 (5th Cir. 1998)). Courts consider
these factors holistically, and do not mechanically count the number of factors that favor each side.
See e.g., Galvez v. KLLM Transp. Servs., LLC, 575 F. Supp. 3d 748, 757 (N.D. Tex. 2021). “The
exclusion of evidence is a harsh penalty and should be used sparingly.” Id. (citation modified).
Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has “emphasized that a continuance is the preferred means of dealing
with” improperly designated witnesses. Campbell v. Keystone Aerial Survs., Inc., 138 F.3d 996, 1001
(5th Cir. 1998) (citation modified).
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
ANALYSIS
I. Status of the Pending Motions for Summary Judgment
Before proceeding to the motions to exclude, the Court will share some observations about
the pending motions for summary judgment. These observations will help contextualize why the
Court will later conclude that the importance of expert testimony weighs against granting the
motions to exclude.
The Court will not yet rule on the motions for summary judgment, given that discovery has
been extended until February 27, 2026, and that Plaintiffs requested additional time for discovery
in their responses to the motions for summary judgment. But Plaintiffs are advised that, in the
Court’s view, given the nature of the case, expert testimony will be significant to resolving the
motions. Under Texas law, a veterinary malpractice claim requires “expert testimony . . . from a
member of the veterinary medical profession with education, skill and experience similar to those
of the defendant.” Simpson v. Baronne Veterinary Clinic, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 602, 607 (S.D. Tex.
2011) (citing Downing v. Gully, 915 S.W.2d 181, 185–86 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth, 1996, writ
denied)). Yet Plaintiffs did not support their responses with any.
For example, Plaintiffs’ response to the Hailo Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
does not address the summary judgment evidence2 that the incubation period for strangles
eliminates the possibility that the Sneed Horses were infected with strangles during their stay at
the property formerly owned by Hailo. The Court is not a veterinarian or an epidemiologist—and
2 The Hailo Defendants’ summary judgment evidence includes testimony from a licensed veterinarian (Dkt. #146-4).
Dr. Pate and Dr. Stoudt also introduced testimony from licensed veterinarians that they did not breach the standard
of care (Dkt. #123-12; Dkt. #145-4).
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
is not positioned to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists if Plaintiffs do not
meaningfully respond to the summary judgment evidence.
This case has now been pending since 2023. Months have passed since Plaintiffs requested
extra time for discovery in their summary judgment responses. They now have it. Plaintiffs are
advised to amend or supplement their responses if discovery enables them to meaningfully
respond. Otherwise, the Court will take up the motions for summary judgment as currently briefed.
The Court shares two final reminders. First, about Local Rule CV-56(b), which provides
that parties responding to a motion for summary judgment “must include” a “response to the
[movant’s] ‘Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.’” (emphasis added). Second, that as “a
general rule, the admissibility of evidence on a motion for summary judgment is subject to the same
rules that govern the admissibility of evidence at trial.” Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works,
Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 175–76 (5th Cir. 1990) (footnote omitted). This means that the rule against
hearsay, as well as the evidentiary requirements for expert testimony, apply to any evidence
Plaintiffs seek to use to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
II. The Hailo Defendants’ Motion to Exclude
The Hailo Defendants filed their motion to exclude on September 8, 2025 (Dkt. #141). It is
now January 2026. No response has been filed, and Plaintiffs have not sought leave to file one. This
district’s Local Rules provide that:
A party’s failure to oppose a motion in the manner prescribed herein creates a
presumption that the party does not controvert the facts set out by movant and has
no evidence to offer in opposition to the motion.
LOCAL RULE CV-7(d).
The Hailo Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures do not comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), which sets forth expert disclosure requirements. Specifically, the
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
Hailo Defendants rely on Rule 26(a)(2)(C)(ii), which provides that the disclosures for non-retained
experts must “provide a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness will testify.”
According to the Hailo Defendants, Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures (Dkt. #141-1 at pp. 2–8) provide
the topics on which their designated experts will testify, but not a summary of their opinions.
The Court agrees. The disclosures mention that witnesses will testify about the topic of
identifying and minimizing an outbreak of the strangles illness, and other topics. But the disclosures
do not provide what the witnesses will conclude. For example, the disclosures do not state that the
experts will testify that any Defendant negligently failed to identify or minimize strangles or about
whether the incubation period for strangles is consistent with any Defendant’s liability.3
The Hailo Defendants request that the Court exclude any opinions that were not timely
disclosed, which, here, would mean all opinions. The Court finds a Rule 26 violation but declines
to outright exclude this testimony, given the importance of expert testimony in this case and the
reduced prejudice caused by trial being continued from March 2026 to May 2026. Accordingly, the
Court will deny the motion. However, it will order Plaintiffs to serve compliant amended expert
disclosures on the Hailo Defendants by January 26, 2026. The disclosures must provide a
summary of facts and the non-retained expert’s opinions in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2)(C). To
the extent any retained expert testimony will be provided, the disclosures must comply with Rule
26(a)(2)(B). Plaintiffs must file a notice of compliance with the Court after the amended
disclosures are served. See, e.g., Eagle Railcar Services-Roscoe, Inc. v. NGL Crude Logistics, LLC, No.
1:16-CV-0153-BL, 2018 WL 2317696, at *20 (N.D. Tex. May 22, 2018) (finding Rule 26 violation
but opting to issue appropriate orders to cure prejudice instead of granting motion to exclude).
3 The Court also observes that no expert has been designated on the issue of whether Dr. Stoudt or Dr. Pate breached
the standard of care.
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
III. The Gibbs Defendants’ Motion to Exclude
This motion is based on the same grounds as the Hailo Defendants’ motion. Namely, that
Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures provide general topics, but not a summary of the opinions that the
non-retained experts will provide. Plaintiffs did file a response to this motion after seeking leave to
respond, but it took them two months. Despite the extra time, Plaintiffs do little to respond to the
substance of the motion. It is not clear whether Plaintiffs’ counsel is using a stock response or
seeking to distract the Court by arguing the uncontroversial point that non-retained experts are not
subject to the stringent disclosure standards for retained experts. When reading the response, one
would assume that the Gibbs Defendants argue that non-retained experts must provide a written
report (see Dkt. #155 at p. 4 (“Plaintiffs designated these experts in accordance with the less
stringent requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(C), not 26(a)(2)(B), which carries no
requirement to provide a report”)). But, instead, the motion argues that:
Despite the requirements for non-retained experts that a party must supply a
“statement of the subject matter” and “a summary of facts and opinions to which the
witness is expected to testify,” Plaintiffs have disclosed only topics of testimony
(subject matter) but none of the expected opinions of the non-retained veterinary
experts they list or any summary of facts.
(Dkt. #144 at p. 3 (emphasis added)).
Plaintiffs must respond to what the motion asserts, not what they wish it did. Here,
Plaintiffs argue that no written report is required and quote paragraphs from the same disclosures
the Court found insufficient when addressing the Hailo Defendants’ motion to exclude. The expert
disclosures are insufficient because they fail to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C)’s requirements for
non-retained experts: they do not provide a summary of the opinions the experts will provide.
Rather, these paragraphs contain general topics of testimony.
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
The Gibbs Defendants ask the Court to exclude all non-disclosed opinions, which, here,
would mean exclude all opinions. Given the importance of expert testimony in this case and the
reduced prejudice due to the continuance of trial from March 2026 to May 2026, the Court will
deny the motion. However, due to Plaintiffs’ violations of Rule 26, the Court will order Plaintiffs
to serve compliant amended expert disclosures on the Gibbs Defendants by January 26, 2026. The
disclosures must provide a summary of facts and the non-retained expert’s opinions in accordance
with Rule 26(a)(2)(C). To the extent any retained expert testimony will be provided, the disclosures
must comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Plaintiffs must file a notice of compliance with the Court after
the amended disclosures are served. See Railcar, 2018 WL 2317696, at *20.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that the Hailo Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony that Plaintiffs’ Horses Contracted Strangles at the Hailo Property (Dkt. #141) and
Defendants Jeffrey Gibbs, Calli Rouse, Gibbs Show Horses, and Calli Rouse Show Horses’
Corrected Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony Upon Plaintiffs’ Claims (Dkt. #144) are
hereby DENIED without prejudice.
It is further ORDERED that:
• Plaintiffs must serve amended expert disclosures that comply with Rule 26 on the
Gibbs Defendants and the Hailo Defendants by January 26, 2026.
• Plaintiffs must file a notice of compliance with the Court once the amended
disclosures are served.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 163 Filed 01/12/26 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document163 _ Filed 01/12/26 Page 16 of 16 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

SIGNED this 12th day of January, 2026.

AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES NSTRICT juDoE