On March 7, 2016, in Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that, in the context of a party's failure to timely disclose an expert witness, the general discovery deadline in the district court's scheduling order controlled, rather than the default deadline for expert disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(a)(2)(D) ( (7th Cir. Mar. 7, 2016)).

In 2005, Orvil Hassebrock and his wife (the Hassebrocks) hired the Bernhoft Law Firm to assist in a variety of legal issues. In 2008, the Hassebrocks fired the firm, and, in 2010, they sued it for malpractice in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The lawsuit also named accountants who allegedly failed to file accurate tax returns on the Hassebrocks' behalf. The case remained pending for two years while the Hassebrocks secured counsel.

On January 17, 2014, a federal magistrate judge issued a minute order setting a discovery deadline of May 10, 2014 and a dispositive motion deadline of May 25, 2014. The order was silent as to a deadline for expert disclosures. On April 9, 2014, the Hassebrocks asked the court to allow them to disclose the name of their expert without a report, but the court did not rule on the motion. The Hassebrocks then failed to make their expert disclosures by the May 10, 2014 deadline. On May 13, 2014, they filed a new motion asking for an extension until May 30, 2014. During oral argument, they explained that they were relying upon FRCP 26, which requires expert disclosures to be made at least 90 days before the trial date absent a stipulation or court order. The magistrate judge denied both motions. The Hassebrocks appealed, and filed their expert report while the appeal was pending. During this time, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The district judge found that, without an expert witness, the Hassebrocks would be unable to establish the standard of care owed to them by the attorneys or accountants, and therefore had no case. The district judge entered summary judgment in the defendants' favor.

On appeal, the Hassebrocks primarily challenged the exclusion of their expert witness. The Seventh Circuit rejected the Hassebrocks' contention that the default expert witness disclosure deadline under FRCP 26(a)(2)(D), rather than the discovery deadline set by the magistrate judge, should have applied. The court noted that expert disclosures are included among discovery requirements, and reiterated that the 90-day deadline under FRCP 26 only applies "absent a stipulation or a court order." Because the magistrate judge issued an order setting the discovery deadline, the deadline in FRCP 26 did not apply. The Seventh Circuit also found that the Hassebrocks had made an argument for excusable neglect on their motion for an extension after the discovery deadline passed, showing that they clearly grasped that the discovery deadline applied to all discovery, including expert disclosures. After analyzing the facts of the case, it also found no abuse of discretion in excluding the witness under FRCP 37.