A Florida court has dismissed a petition filed by Marlon Berrouet and his wife, Rose Carline Romain, regarding the exclusion of their expert witnesses in a personal injury case. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the couple could not demonstrate irreparable harm from the trial court's decision to strike their late-disclosed expert witnesses. This ruling affects how parties may approach expert witness disclosures in future cases.
The case stems from an incident in 2018 when Berrouet suffered injuries from a slip and fall accident at a commercial building owned by NM Auction General Partnership and Gabrita 125th, Inc. Romain, as Berrouet's spouse, filed a claim for loss of consortium, which is a legal term for the loss of companionship and support due to injury. The couple's legal battle has been ongoing, and the recent ruling has significant implications for their case.
The dispute reached the Third District Court of Appeal after the trial court issued a pretrial scheduling order on July 2, 2025. This order set the trial date for December 15, 2025, and required both parties to disclose their expert witnesses by October 16, 2025. Berrouet and Romain, however, filed their expert witness disclosures 11 days late, on October 27, 2025. In response, NM Auction and Gabrita moved to strike the late disclosures, arguing that they would be prejudiced by the late filing.
During a hearing on the motion, the trial court emphasized the importance of adhering to trial deadlines. The court found that the late disclosure would cause prejudice and decided to strike the expert witnesses. Although the trial was subsequently continued to August 2, 2026, the court did not reinstate the stricken witnesses. This led Berrouet and Romain to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking to challenge the trial court's decision.
The Third District Court of Appeal, which includes judges FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and BOKOR, reviewed the petition. The court ruled that the petitioners failed to meet the necessary criteria for certiorari relief. To succeed, they needed to demonstrate two key factors: a material injury in the proceedings that could not be corrected on appeal, known as irreparable harm, and a departure from the essential requirements of the law.
In its opinion, the court stated, "the exclusion of Berrouet and Romain’s non-treating expert witnesses can be corrected, as appropriate, on plenary appeal." The court referenced previous cases to support its decision, explaining that the exclusion of evidence could be remedied after the trial court issues a final judgment. The court concluded that without a showing of irreparable harm, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition.
This ruling has important implications for future cases involving expert witness disclosures. It reinforces the necessity for parties to adhere to pretrial deadlines and highlights the consequences of failing to do so. The court's decision signifies that parties may not be able to rely on last-minute disclosures without facing potential exclusion of their evidence.
The dismissal of this petition means that Berrouet and Romain will have to proceed with their case without the expert witnesses they intended to present. This could significantly impact their ability to prove their claims during the trial. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of timely compliance with court orders and deadlines in legal proceedings.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether Berrouet and Romain will seek further legal action in this matter. They may have the option to appeal the trial court's final judgment once the case concludes. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing.